Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [22nd July] and agreed to.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

[King's Consent signified]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL

[King's Consent signified]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR CARS)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions the cost of the four-seater motor car now supplied free to the badly disabled war pensioner and the cost of the new weather-protected single-seater motor tricycle, which is soon to be supplied to the less badly disabled war pensioner; and whether he will consider, at some future date, the issue of a small two-seater car to those disabled war pensioners who have lost both legs but fail to qualify for the issue of a four-seater car.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): It is contrary to established practice to disclose prices under Government contracts. The annual cost to public funds will be £40 greater for a car than for a tricycle. Experience of both types of vehicle will be carefully studied and any possible modification of the scheme, including that suggested by the noble Lord, will be considered.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: While I appreciate what the Minister has done and is doing in this respect, may I ask him whether, in his turn, he appreciates the fact that it is possible for a man to lose both legs but, simply because he has not lost them high enough up, to be compelled to have a tricycle and to ride by himself for the rest of his life? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is produced in this country today a two-seater car called the Minicar which would suit his purpose very well?

Mr. Marquand: I am fully conscious of what the noble Lord said in the first part of his question. As I think he knows, I have studied very carefully with all the organisations which represent such men to see how best we can meet their needs. I want to say that what has been done so far is not necessarily final. We shall watch very carefully to see any further improvements we can make. I cannot make any comment on the particular type of vehicle.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the Minister, in the case of men who are in possession of mechanical vehicles of various kinds which are now wearing out, whether he will have a survey made so that these men can be re-equipped, because they cannot get the spare parts?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, that is one of the main purposes of producing this new vehicle. All who at present have the open vehicle will get a new one, as and when the present vehicle falls for renewal.

Mr. Scollan: Would it not be wise to put it to the Cabinet that it would be a far greater thing for the country to see all the men who are maimed in this fashion riding in a car rather than the able-bodied spivs we see riding in them in this country?

Mr. Driberg: With reference to the second part of the Question on the Order


Paper, would my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely difficult in many cases to make a valid distinction between the two degrees of amputation? Is he satisfied that his advisers and experts have a real basis for such a distinction?

Mr. Marquand: Of course it is difficult, and that is why we made the mistakes which were referred to previously. At the same time, my hon. Friend must remember that providing 1,500 cars in two years is the utmost that the supply provision will permit us to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR GRAVES COMMISSION (EX-EMPLOYEE)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will pay compensation to Mr. H. H. Dixon, a former employee of the Imperial War Graves Commission in Palestine in respect of the losses incurred by him as a result of his evacuation from Palestine under Operation Polly in 1947.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Mr. Dixon, who was resident in Palestine, was engaged locally by the Commission in October, 1946, and employed on their local temporary staff as a cemetery caretaker until he was evacuated to this country by the Palestine Government in February, 1947. Despite his very short service the Commission continued to pay him wages at the rate of £20 a month until 15th June, 1947. I understand that the Palestine Government paid him an allowance after that date. I see no reason why the Commission should pay compensation to Mr. Dixon, who in 1947 expressed his appreciation of the excellent treatment accorded to him by the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Motor Car Loss (Claim)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for War why his Department will not accept responsibility for the total destruction of a motor car belonging to Mr. Peter Coburn, of 7, Havesbreakes Place, Lancaster, by military personnel using War Department equipment on War Department property.

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. Member has already been informed, the soldiers responsible were not on duty at the time the unlawful act was committed. Consequently, on the grounds that in similar circumstances a private employer would not be responsible in law for the unauthorised acts committed by his servant, I am unable to accept liability. I understand that Mr. Coburn has already received payment for this loss from his insurance company.

Mr. Maclean: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the leave passes of the soldiers in question had expired, and as they were on War Department property and using War Department equipment, they came under military discipline?

Mr. Shinwell: No. My advice is that these men were definitely off duty.

Mr. Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a civilian car was allowed to enter the camp at such a late hour?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I gather, there is no question of a civilian car entering the camp. Apparently, these men, while off duty and on a frolic of their own, broke into a civilian garage where they discovered the car and stole it.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not a fact that the car was destroyed?

Royal Military Academy (Horses)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War what consideration is being given to the maintenance of sufficient Government horses at the Royal Military Academy to enable officer cadets to ride and to learn to ride as a voluntary recreation.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not possible for horses to be provided from Army funds for this purpose.

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing reply indeed, and that while it may be necessary to delete horsemanship from the syllabus at Sandhurst, will he not agree that it did a great deal of good in the past? May I appeal to him to reconsider this, for it would cost only a small outlay?

Mr. Shinwell: No doubt horsemanship should be encouraged, but I am sorry that I cannot provide the financial facilities.

Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is one very big Government horse, the T.U.C., and that it would be a good thing if someone were taught to control it?

Overseas Deaths

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to say if any way has been found of reducing the charges for bringing soldiers' bodies home from different parts of the world.

Mr. Shinwell: I am glad to say that the Railway Executive have agreed to reduce by half the sea freight charge for the conveyance of soldiers' bodies from the Hook of Holland to Harwich.

Mr. Royle: May I express great satisfaction with that answer, and follow it up by asking if my right hon. Friend can now consider with the Minister of Pensions if it is possible for them to make a contribution, so that this burden may be taken off the shoulders of parents in these circumstances?

Mr. Shinwell: That would raise very wide issues which I am not prepared to answer at this stage. I think we have gone a long way in the direction that my hon. Friend desires.

Duties, London Docks

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for War if it is intended to publish in the divisional and brigade orders of the units concerned an appreciation of the work done in the London Docks by various units of the Army.

Mr. Shinwell: An appreciation of the fine work done by the troops at the London Docks is being sent to all the units concerned for publication in orders.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While I am not objecting to that, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the best way to show our appreciation is to give the men extended leave for the very fine work they have done? Will he consider that?

Mr. Shinwell: No, I am afraid I cannot. These men undertook duties in the national interest, but they were in precisely the same position as many other men who were not similarly occupied but who undertook other duties.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if it was purely a coincidence that it was not until my Question appeared on the Paper that Ministers began to realise the debt they owed to the troops?

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Shinwell: I can hardly think that we require to invoke my right hon. Friend opposite in order to express appreciation of the services rendered by our men in the Forces.

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the employment of Army personnel at the London Docks has interfered with regimental and brigade training for troops stationed in the British Isles.

Mr. Shinwell: There has unfortunately been some interference with regimental training as a result of the employment of soldiers at the London Docks, but not on an extensive scale. No brigade training has been arranged for this month.

Earl Winterton: In view of the difficulty of training the Army at the present time and of the frequency with which troops have been used in the last year or so in this and similar strikes, will the right hon. Gentleman consider in future adopting the alternative method of calling for civilian volunteers, after a clarion call by the Minister of Labour, singing, for example, "The Red Flag"?

Mr. Shinwell: As the noble Lord is aware, I am not responsible for the production of civilian labour. As for singing "The Red Flag," I regard it as a very desirable thing to do.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the men will not be made to suffer for this by an intensified training, which is apt to take place after an event of this kind?

Mr. Shinwell: I have made very careful inquiries into this matter. The interference with training is infinitesimal, and it will not interfere with any operations.

Soldier's Death, Trieste

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War the circumstances in which T/22201187 Private Fred Hassall, Royal Army Service Corps, received gun-shot wounds, resulting in his death, on 14th July, 1949, at Trieste, particulars of which have already been sent him.

Mr. Shinwell: A full investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Private Hassall is being carried out. When this has been completed I will write to the hon. and gallant Member. I should, however, like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with Private Hassall's parents in their distress.

Air-Commodore Harvey: While appreciating what is being done, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the parents in the first instance received a telegram intimating that their son had died, and that a day afterwards they received a very detailed report from a news correspondent? Surely it would be better if War Office officials gave a little bit more information to let parents know the circumstances in which their sons died?

Mr. Shinwell: No, I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It would be most improper to convey information to the parents of the deceased soldiers unless we were fully informed of the facts. In this particular instance we have yet to complete inquiries.

Air-Commodore Harvey: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have the facts so that the parents will know?

Mr. Shinwell: We have asked the Command to furnish the informaion with a sense of urgency.

Dental Centre, Winchester

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for emergency treatment to be given at the Army Dental Centre, at Bushfield Camp, Winchester, to civilian patients who have been refused attention by Winchester dentists.

Mr. Shinwell: No. The dental officer at Winchester is fully employed.

Masonic Hall, Leicester

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Masonic Hall, London Road, Leicester, which has been requisitioned for the last 10 years, has not been vacated in accordance with his undertaking of 6th November, 1947, reference PUS/BM/151/47; and if he will forthwith concentrate the Records Office in the three other buildings now occupied in Leicester, as undertaken by his director of quartering on 1st July.

Mr. Shinwell: Unfortunately the proposals for the acquisition of the premises which had been selected in 1947 to house the Record Office had to be dropped, and it has not yet been possible to find suitable premises. I understand that on 1st July the Director of Quartering undertook to investigate the possibility of moving the section of the Record Office at the Masonic Hall to other premises in Leicester, but he did not promise to move it into the other buildings occupied by the Record Office as appeals had also been received for the release of some of these. I am aware of the local feeling on this subject, and every effort will be made to find a satisfactory solution of the problem as early as possible.

Mr. Osborne: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he made a similar promise nearly two years ago, and that in the meantime nothing has been done? Is it not reasonable to ask that he should make a promise that this property shall be derequisitioned before the end of this year, in view of the fact that there are other properties in Leicester that could be used for this purpose? May I have that promise from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Shinwell: I am bound to say that I cannot recall any promise that I made under this head nearly two years ago, though the hon. Gentleman may be right. However, we are doing everything possible to release these premises.

Mr. Osborne: Two years ago a similar promise was made to do everything possible, and as yet nothing has been done. Can I have a promise that in six months the right hon. Gentleman's Department will be out of these premises?

Mr. Shinwell: Some difficulty may have emerged in the last two years which


has made it difficult to release the premises. I do not desire to hold the premises any longer than is necessary.

Far East Postings

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the 14th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, now under orders for service in the Far East have had less than six months in England since returning from service in the Far East; and whether it is his policy to allow men to do two successive full terms of duty in the Far East without any intervening break of home service.

Mr. Shinwell: One man has been reposted to the Far East after less than six months' stay in this country. He had returned here for parachute training, but had been found to be unsuitable. He has, therefore, been sent back to the Far East to complete his tour of service overseas, which is the normal practice in such cases. Officers and men who return from the Far East after completing their overseas tour are not normally reposted there for at least 18 months after their return to this country. It has, however, been necessary to make exceptions for operational reinforcements. In such cases, subject to operational conditions, the individuals will be given the option of returning to the United Kingdom six months after disembarking in the Far East.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the one man about whom I have written to him, does he think it right that a young man of 22, after doing three years' service in the Far East, should be allowed only just six months at home before being sent out to do a further tour of duty in the Far East?

Mr. Shinwell: It surely depends on the circumstances. In this particular instance the circumstances were exceptional, because the man had been returned here for specialised training, and when he was found unsuitable we naturally reposted him.

Depot, Kenya

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) the average weekly loss of stores over the last 12 months from the Mackinnon Road depot, Kenya;
(2) the average monthly wastage due to malaria and other tropical diseases in the garrison of Mackinnon Road depot, Kenya;
(3) the quantity of water supplied daily in Mackinnon Road depot, Kenya, per head of the garrison.

Mr. Shinwell: I have asked the Command for the information, which is not available here. When it has been obtained I will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Queen's Army Schoolmistresses

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to announce his decision with regard to the salaries and status of Queen's Army schoolmistresses.

Mr. Shinwell: Regulations concerning the new rates of pay and improvements in conditions of service for regular Queen's Army schoolmistresses will be published shortly. It has been decided to accord them a status equivalent to that of junior commissioned officers.

Mr. Morley: Would my right hon. Friend see that these increases in pay are, when granted, dated back to 1st April, 1948, when the last Burnham award was promulgated?

Mr. Shinwell: We had come to that conclusion before it was suggested by my hon. Friend.

Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (Damage)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give regarding recent damage done to his Department's property in the grounds of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, particularly regarding the wilful damage done to ropes, as a result of which damage a sergeant fell from a height and was seriously injured; and what action he is taking to deal with this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: On account of the commission of wilful damage it has been necessary to exclude the public from the grounds of the Royal Military Academy, except for the use of the road from Camberley to Sandhurst Village, which runs


through the grounds. The damage included the cutting and burning of some hemp ropes used for training purposes. The accident to the sergeant instructor was due to the parting of a wire rope which had not been tampered with. The sergeant was bruised but remained on duty.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIELD-MARSHAL VON MANSTEIN (TRIAL)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that all the documents from America required for the Manstein trial have now been delivered to counsel for the defence; and whether he has any further statement to make regarding the provision of adequate British defending counsel.

Mr. Shinwell: All the documents originally requested by the German defence counsel on 10th June have been available for their inspection at Hamburg since 19th July, with the exception of three German orders which could not be identified from the information furnished. Further details have now been supplied by the German counsel, and a further search for the orders is being made in the United States of America. Further requests from the German counsel for additional documents have, however, recently been received and, if they are available, no time will be lost in producing them for inspection. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No."

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these documents, wherever they may be, will be available in time, and to allow counsel the three weeks for consideration for which they asked in the first place? With regard to the second part of the Question, is it not rather shaming that a private fund has had to be started to provide British counsel, as, whatever may be the view of the Lord Chancellor about the competence of the German lawyers concerned, the German lawyers themselves have declared themselves totally incompetent to defend the prisoner at this tribunal?

Mr. Shinwell: With regard to the provision of such documents as are available, no obstacle will be placed in the path of defending counsel; and, indeed, we have

done everything possible to assist them. As regards the fund being raised by private persons, I make no comment, except to say that we intend to bring this man to trial in the interests of justice.

Mr. Stokes: Could my right hon. Friend answer the last part of my Question? Is he aware that, while the Lord Chancellor has declared that these German lawyers are competent to deal with the case, the German lawyers themselves have declared themselves to be totally incompetent; and does he consider that that is satisfactory?

Mr. Shinwell: If I have to choose between the opinion of the Lord Chancellor and the opinion of German counsel I prefer the opinion of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Stokes: Then the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not expect a lawyer to defend any officer, British or German, if the lawyer says he is not competent to defend him?

Mr. Shinwell: I must say that it is very unusual for a lawyer to say that he is incompetent to defend a man.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Well, he has said so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR (PAY)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a further statement on the payment of German ex-prisoners of war, remaining in this country as civilians, for work done during their captivity; and approximately what sum is owing to them, expressed in sterling.

Mr. Shinwell: The Geneva Convention provides that any balance which remains to the credit of a prisoner of war on the termination of his captivity shall be remitted to him, but it does not specify in what manner this shall be done. Under the terms of reciprocal agreements between the British and German Governments, the liability for the payment of these balances rests with the German authorities as a charge against the German economy, and there is no


arrangement at present whereby these mark credits can be converted into sterling. I am not aware of the number of ex-German prisoners of war who have failed to draw their balances in marks in Germany and I cannot therefore state the total sum involved.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not rather an absurd situation that these men, many of whom are probably staying here permanently or semi-permanently, will never be able to draw the pay to which they are entitled for work they did in agriculture in this country; and cannot my right hon. Friend persuade the Treasury, by whom this question has been exchanged with his Department again and again, to treat this matter in a commonsense way?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, so far as we are concerned we have honoured all our agreements, and we cannot be expected to go further than that. If we were to impose some conditions on the German economy the ultimate result would be that the taxpayer of this country would have to foot the bill.

Mr. Spence: Could the right hon. Gentleman make some arrangement in cases where the men are going to remain permanently in this country; and is he aware of a case about which I have written to him?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of the case the hon. Gentleman has sent to the War Office, but I will look into it. As regards the general position, we cannot provide general remittance facilities, for the reasons I have advanced.

Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. Gentleman say with what German Government this agreement was made?

Mr. Shinwell: Whichever German Government exercise authority in this matter.

Mr. Paget: Well, what is it?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. and learned Friend wishes information about the precise form of the German Government, I venture to suggest that he should address the question to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Paget: Is it not the Control Commission?

Mr. Shinwell: If it is the Control Commission, it has nothing to do with my office.

Captain Crookshank: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the amount of money involved? Is it a very trifling sum or a large sum?

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have heard that part of my answer when I said:
I cannot therefore state the total sum involved.

Mr. Driberg: I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, if possible tomorrow morning, or on Monday or Tuesday, or whenever possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Development Rights (Claims)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is satisfied that claims in respect of loss of development rights under the Town and Country Planning Act have now been submitted by the persons affected.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I am satisfied that from June, 1948, onwards everything practicable was done to inform owners of interests in land depreciated in value as the result of the Act of their right to make a claim and of the closing date therefore.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman also satisfied that in fact all or most of the people concerned, particularly owners of small plots of land, really are aware of this; and can he assure the House that we shall not have in some years the same sort of situation that has arisen with the War Damage Commission over late claims?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot, of course, answer the question specifically, but my belief is that by far the vast majority of people have made a claim.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Have any claims come in since the beginning of the month; and if so, how many?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot say.

Brigadier Medlicott: Has the number of claims received come within reach of the number anticipated?

Mr. Silkin: It has over-reached the number estimated.

Congested Areas, London

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is now able to give details of his scheme for associating new towns with particular congested areas so far as the provision of housing accommodation is concerned; and what specific proposals he has in view for assisting the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras in this connection.

Mr. Silkin: Particulars of the scheme I am proposing for associating the new towns round London with particular congested areas, including all the metropolitan boroughs, will be sent very shortly to all local authorities in the Greater London area, with an invitation for their comments on the proposals. In these circumstances the hon. Member will not expect me to deal specially with one particular case.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my own borough over 60 per cent. of the families on the housing list have expressed a willingness to work and live in the new towns?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I was aware of that, and it is of course a factor which will be taken into consideration.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand that the unfortunate new town in my constituency, which we do not want, is not to be consulted in the matter, but that this is to be the subject of a deal between the right hon. Gentleman and the authorities in London? Surely that is a monstrous suggestion. Why should they not he consulted?

Mr. Silkin: I never indicated that they would not be. In fact, these consultations will be with the development corporation.

Licensed Premises Site, Finchley

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he has considered an inquiry held on 14th July

by an inspector appointed by him in relation to an appeal by Messrs. Charrington and Company, Limited, against a refusal of the Finchley Borough Council to permit the erection of licensed premises upon a site which had previously been approved by them for this use, and in respect of which a new justice's licence had already been obtained; and if he will consider issuing directions now to his planning authorities, to avoid rendering of no effect the decisions of the authorities appointed by statute to deal with matters relating to the grant of new licences.

Mr. Silkin: The answer to the first part is "Not yet." On the second part, I agree that co-operation between the planning authorities and licensing justices is important, and I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs how we can best secure it.

Mr. Nield: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I do not of course ask him to pronounce upon the case referred to in the Question. I am anxious to know generally if he will, as he indicates, take steps as soon as possible to avoid a conflict between the decision of the town planning authority, on the one hand, and the licensing justices, on the other, which may result in wasted expenditure, loss and hardship?

Mr. Silkin: There have been very few cases. I realise the inconvenience of these conflicts and it is for that purpose that I am having discussions with my right hon. Friend.

Congleton

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what tests have been carried out regarding the suitability of Congleton to be classified as a new town; and if he is now able to give a decision in this matter.

Mr. Silkin: Tests are now being carried out for the purpose of ascertaining how far certain land in the area might be affected by subsidence due to the solution of underground salt deposits. Investigations are also being made into the extent to which the water supply could be increased. Further examinations have still to be made, and I am not yet able to put forward a definite proposal about a new town.

Air-Commodore Harvey: When will the Minister be able to make up his mind on this matter, which has been going on for months and months? There are certain business concerns considering opening in Congleton but they will not do so while he is undecided. Will he make up his mind as soon as possible?

Mr. Silkin: I will do so as soon as I have the necessary data.

Service Land Requirements, Merioneth

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether the War Office's proposal to acquire additional land at Trawsfynydd, Merioneth, will be considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Service Land Requirements; or whether a public inquiry will be held forthwith.

Mr. Silkin: I propose to take steps immediately to arrange for a public local inquiry to be held in the matter.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that on 19th April he informed me there was no purpose in this scheme appearing before the Inter-Departmental Committee on Service Land Requirements, while his own Department wrote to the local land committee at the end of June saying that this case would go before the committee? How does he explain conflicting statements of that character from his Department?

Mr. Silkin: In view of the criticism of the War Office proposals they were modified. It was hoped that the modifications might commend themselves to the local people. I am now satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by further inter-Departmental discussions, and I therefore propose holding an inquiry.

Mobberley

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will now define the area at Mobberley on which development is likely to take place; and whether he will give an assurance that deep borings have been, or will be, carried out before any building commences in that area.

Mr. Silkin: Discussions are still in progress with a view to ensuring that as much of the development as possible shall take place on land which is of the least importance

to agriculture. Until these discussions have reached a conclusion, it will not be possible to say what area is likely to be developed or what further geological tests may be necessary. On the latter point, however, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of the assurance I gave on 28th June in answer to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: As the Minister has also referred to me in a letter with regard to the new site at Mobberley on which development is likely to take place, why cannot he define its possible area and so put farmers and other people out of their anxiety? He has already told me that he has practically decided, but why has he not issued a statement?

Mr. Silkin: There is no question as to a portion of the site, but as to the remainder discussions are still going on with the Ministry of Agriculture and the local authority. Until these discussions are concluded it is not possible for me to say exactly what the site will be.

Sir John Barlow: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what amount of green belt it is proposed to have between the suggested new site at Mobberley and surrounding towns.

Mr. Silkin: I am of course anxious that the green belt should be as wide as possible, and this is one of the factors to be taken into account in settling the precise area to be developed. This area, however, has not yet been settled.

Sir J. Barlow: Does the Minister realise that the indecision on his part is very prejudicial to agriculture in the area, and that farmers are not farming their land properly because they do not know how long they will have the land in their possession?

Mr. Silkin: This alleged indecision is for the very reason that I am anxious to protect the interests of the farmers as much as I possibly can.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it not true that the green belt which separates Knutsford from this proposed new town is only some 350 yards in length? Can we have a straight answer to that question?

Mr. Silkin: Until the precise area of Mobberley is settled it is not possible to say what will be the size of that strip,


although I admit it is not a very large one. In fact, all the indications I have are that Knutsford and Mobberley should be dealt with as one area.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Would not the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties be overcome if he accepted the advice of the Minister of Agriculture and let the farmers get on with their jobs?

Mr. Silkin: It is not as easy as that.

Overspill, Manchester (Allocation)

Mr. Nield: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether any estimate has been made of the total overspill from Manchester which it is necessary to accommodate in the surrounding counties; and what is the approximate allocation to each county.

Mr. Silkin: Several estimates have been made by committees of local authorities in the area. All estimates on such a difficult matter are necessarily tentative, but on present information I think it may ultimately be necessary to provide accommodation in the surrounding counties for as many as 300,000 people from Manchester and the immediately adjoining towns. As far as I can see, about half this number would have to go to Cheshire and half to Lancashire. I hope it will shortly be possible to say something more definite about the scale on which provision should be made in the development plans to be submitted by 1951.

Mr. Nield: Is it not a fact that the Cheshire County Council has itself produced a plan for accommodating some 300,000 people from Manchester and the near districts with the minimum damage to agriculture? In such circumstances, is it necessary to seek to accommodate some 25,000 people at Mobberley on the best agricultural land in the country? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider this again? I too should like a straight answer.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Member always gets a straight answer. I have seen the proposals of Cheshire County Council and have given them very careful consideration. I am not satisfied that they can accommodate anything like 300,000 people. In my view it is about half that number.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it not a fact that the proposal put forward in black and white by Cheshire County Council definitely allowed for an overspill population of 300,000 people from Manchester alone? Why does the Minister talk such poppycock?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not also a fact that thousands of people in the Manchester area have for generations been living under scandalous conditions, and will my right hon. Friend give an indication that their needs shall have priority over everything else? Can I have a straight answer to that question?

Ironstone Workings, Midlands

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning in what parishes and over what acreage of the Kettering and Brixworth Rural Districts are ironstone producers being allowed to continue working without any legal obligation under the Planning Acts to restore the land; and when he proposes to impose such an obligation.

Mr. Silkin: About 160 acres a year are being worked in these areas. Much of this is being restored voluntarily. Appropriate conditions requiring after-treatment will be imposed when the applications to continue working have been decided. Except for urgent cases, these applications will not be decided until a general policy has been formulated at the conferences. Such conditions will certainly include restoration of land now being excavated when that is right and practicable.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that he has been hatching that egg chronically for some years and acutely for about two years? Is it not about time this policy came out of its shell and was announced?

Mr. Silkin: It is only a relatively short time since mining operations came under planning control. Before that they were quite uncontrolled. We really must satisfy ourselves that the conditions we are imposing are such as will not cripple the industry.

Mr. Stokes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that except in very deep cases, which are rare, there is no reason whatever why the land should not be restored?

Mr. Silkin: That is exactly what we are trying to ascertain in consultation with the industry. There are many cases where restoration will be prohibitive in cost.

Mr. Stokes: Very few.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it advisable to take the advice of a debtor when considering whether to collect the debt?

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will make a statement as to the meetings and progress of the two standing conferences on ironstone workings in the Midlands; and when he expects a report or advice from either conference.

Mr. Silkin: The producers' conference has met six times and I understand that detailed investigation by sub-committees is well advanced on a number of technical matters such as restoration to agriculture, afforestation and plant and machinery. Progress has also been made on the examination of the iron-stone resources and the question of the reservation of areas to meet future production needs is being considered. In a more limited field the landowners' conference, which has met twice, is giving valuable help on afforestation and similar problems. All these questions are highly technical and require much detailed examination. I cannot yet say when either Conference will be in a position to advise me of their conclusions on particular topics.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is happening in Northamptonshire is causing a great deal of anxiety, and that people are getting impatient with these conferences, one of which has been going on since September and which was preceded by the original investigations of its chairman, Mr. Waters?

Mr. Silkin: The damage done is very slight, and I cannot be jockeyed into formulating a policy until I have all the necessary data. Perhaps Members opposite would prefer to make policy without the necessary data.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the atrocious neglect in this direction over the years, and not be jockeyed into a position which does

not take into consideration the many circumstances that must be borne in mind in matters of this kind?

Mr. Stokes: Are agriculturists properly represented on the producers' conference, or are the iron ore producers left to do their worst?

Mr. Silkin: They are helped.

Mr. Osborne: Is all this delay and muddle essential?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Non-Employed Persons (Pensions)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that under existing regulations non-employed persons who have given due notice of claims of pension in anticipation of attaining the prescribed age, are thereafter required to give notice of retirement, although they have no occupation from which to retire; and whether he will alter the regulations so as to correct this anomaly.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The National Insurance Act requires everyone, including those classified as non-employed to give formal notice of retirement as a condition of receiving a retirement pension, and I have no power to alter this by regulations. Provision for giving this notice is made in the claim form, and if this is duly completed no separate notice is required.

Mr. Macpherson: Is it not the case that preliminary notices are given by non-employed persons that they are about to reach the age of entitlement to pension? After they have done that, what is the point of giving notice that they are about to reach that age of retirement from employment they have not got?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that it is an anomaly, but I think that it can be removed by administration without going to the trouble of amending the Act.

Local Advisory Committees

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will invite nominations from the British Federation of Old Age Pensioners to sit on the local advisory committees now in the process of being appointed.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon Friend has already been informed, membership of the committees will include persons appointed after consultation with organisations of employers and workers, local authorities and friendly societies. The remainder will be persons with special local knowledge or experience likely to be of value. I am satisfied that the committees as constituted will be fully competent to watch over the interests of old people.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend say precisely whether this organisation, which has the interests of two million people at heart, will be given an opportunity to be represented on these very important committees?

Mr. Griffiths: I have given representation to certain permanent organisations I have named, but I do not think I could go beyond that and include any other organisations.

Mr. Brown: Is not this permanent organisation entitled, in this democratic age, to have representation on committees which will determine the destiny of the people they represent?

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot admit the claim of any such organisation to exclusive representation of aged people.

National Assistance (Widows)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will give an estimate of the cost which would be incurred by the National Assistance Board in paying the insurance contributions for those widows between the ages of 50 and 60 years, whose husbands died before 5th July, 1948, and who are in receipt of payments from the Board in supplementation of their 10s. pension.

Mr. William Ross: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many widows whose husbands died before 5th July, 1948, and who are between 50 and 60 years of age, are in receipt of payments from the National Assistance Board.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The National Assistance Board inform me that the number of such widows cannot be precisely stated but they estimate that there are about 17,000 widows in receipt of assistance supplementary to a 10s. pension. The

cost to the Board of paying national insurance contributions in respect of these widows at the rate for non-employed persons is estimated at about £160,000 a year. The total cost to the Exchequer cannot be precisely estimated.

Mr. Willis: In view of the comparatively small cost, would my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion in the Question?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter of policy, which the Assistance Board themselves will have to consider.

Mrs. Ridealgh: Would my right hon. Friend consider paying the contributions of those widows who have no income other than 10s. a week?

Mr. Griffiths: I have no power to pay contributions; they must be paid by those from whom they are due. The question whether assistance should include any kind of contribution is a matter of policy for the Board to decide.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As the Minister has power to remit contributions would he not exercise that power?

Mr. Griffiths: I have power to credit people with contributions in certain circumstances, but the hon. Member will appreciate that that would have an effect on the contributions to be paid by others.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL TRADE (WAGES)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the decision to adopt the recommendations of the Resale Price Maintenance Committee and to endeavour to do away with existing collective systems of price protection of certain products sold in shops, he intends to take similar action to put an end to existing collective systems for protecting wages of the employees in the retail trade.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir.

Mr. Mikardo: Is not the difference between resale price maintenance and collective wage bargaining that the first is designed to maintain prices over the true value of the goods while the second is designed to raise wages to the true value of the services rendered? Can my right


hon. Friend explain that point in words of one syllable, which even the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) will understand?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That would be too arduous a task for me.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not an inevitable corollary of fixed wage agreements that there must be some fixing of prices, too?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I hope Members on both sides of the House will not advocate the destruction of industrial relations in our conciliation system.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY ACCIDENT, MANCHESTER

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a recent case at Manchester Assizes, resulting in the award of £7,500 damages to Miss Mary Marshall, as a result of injuries caused by an unprotected revolving machine shaft at the factory of S. and A. Wilkinson, of St. Oswald Street, Collyhurst, Manchester; whether he will state the date of the last visit by a factory inspector to these works; whether, in this case, any warning was given to the firm by the factory inspector concerning the danger arising from the machine in question; and if he will give an undertaking that his Department will institute proceedings against any firm who, after having been duly warned, continue to expose their workpeople to dangers of this kind.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that the accident happened on 3rd July, 1947. The last previous visit by a factory inspector to the works had been on 18th March. The shaft was about eight feet above the floor and normally out of reach, and the inspector had no grounds at the time for giving the firm any special warning about it. The firm were prosecuted by the Department in connection with the accident and convicted. As regards the last part of the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that a prosecution will be instituted in all appropriate cases.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this case it was necessary to come into contact with the machine shaft in order to open the window? That being so, ought not the

inspector to have taken notice of the position?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not think that we can expect factory inspectors to be prophets, or to see into the future. I think the factory inspector did his job properly. The accident was very regrettable.

Mr. Piratin: What was the sentence of the court in this case?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot give the details without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (UNPAID APPOINTMENTS)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of appointments in Government Departments held by individuals who receive no salary for the work which they perform; and what is the approximate annual saving to the Treasury.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The information is not available centrally, and I do not feel justified in giving instructions for its collection. Nor do I think that the calculation of hypothetical savings necessarily based on hypothetically assessed salaries would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not a disgrace that the Government should take advantage of volunteer service and not even know who is providing it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; the point of my answer is that there is a considerable burden of work on the Civil Service, and that such an inquiry would serve no useful purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE OFFICERS (SPEECHES)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider the present practice whereby a British officer still on the active list can make pronouncements on international policy without prior consultation with the Government.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Chamberlain: Is it not extremely undesirable that high ranking officers like Field-Marshal Montgomery should be allowed to make highly inflammatory and warlike speeches, such as he made recently. Is that a desirable practice?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such case.

Earl Winterton: In justice to the distinguished officer against whom this Question is aimed, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that a seconded officer of His Majesty's Army has always been able to make statements of the kind referred to, and that some have even been Members of this House?

The Prime Minister: I have not had notice of what particular matter is alluded to, but Field-Marshal Montgomery is at present the servant of the Western Union Ministers of Defence.

Mr. Chamberlain: Will my right hon. Friend read Field-Marshal Montgomery's speech, made ten days ago at the Hague, and consider giving him some kind of guidance as to what to say?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will send me a copy I will look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS DAY (OBSERVANCE)

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to secure the nation-wide observance of United Nations Day on 24th October; and whether he is in touch with the United Nations Association about any arrangements which may be made.

The Prime Minister: Plans for United Nations Day are now being jointly drawn up by the United Nations Association, the United Nations Information Centre and certain Government Departments.

Mr. Clement Davies: As this is a national matter and not a party matter at all, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that his answer will give general satisfaction.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In view of the importance of the observance of this day, and from the point of view of cultivating public opinion in its favour, will the Prime Minister use his influence with the

Central Office of Information and other Government organisations to give it all the publicity possible?

The Prime Minister: We did that last year, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Prime Minister consider broadcasting a message to the nation on United Nations day?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC SITUATION (PUBLICITY)

Mr. Austin: asked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that many sections of the public are still misinformed as to the nature of the country's economic situation, particularly in regard to the achievement of a dollar-sterling balance of trade, whether he will supplement the publicity already given to this question by means of broadcasts, pamphlets and cinema activities.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend as to the great importance of the widest possible understanding of the country's economic situation; and the Government will continue to take all appropriate steps to this end.

Mr. Austin: While grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the necessity for an early broadcast of a non-political character by himself or the Lord President of the Council?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Health to put Socialism last in all future speeches?

Mr. Marlowe: If the people of this country are misinformed as to our economic position is that not entirely due to the failure of the Government to inform them?

The Prime Minister: There has been ample information by the Government, and a lot of sham information by other people.

Captain Crookshank: If hon. Members are to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that much information has been given, does he not realise that most of that information is given in language not understood by the people?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so. I do not suppose the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has the time to see all the speeches and read all the pronouncements, but a great many are made in very powerful language.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of the admirable and lucid presentation in a simplified White Paper issued shortly after the Budget, will the Prime Minister look sympathetically on plans to follow that up with similar publications dealing with this particular problem.

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to consider anything on that. I do not think it is right to under-estimate the intelligence of the electorate. They understand a great deal more than hon. Members opposite give them credit for.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Canadian Wheat (Purchases)

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent E.C.A. funds are at present being allotted for the purchase of Canadian wheat.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): E.C.A. funds are not at present being allotted for the purchase of Canadian wheat.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have to pay in dollars for all the Canadian wheat that we import?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. No funds at present are being allotted, and the question now asked is entirely different.

Poultry Project, Gambia

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the expert advice he obtained before allowing the purchase of hatching eggs from the United States of America for the poultry project in the Gambia was confirmed by the technical officers of the Ministry of Agriculture; and if arrangements have been made for the future to supply from the United Kingdom replacement stock of suitable strain;
(2) if he will specify the strain of poultry which the Treasury agreed should

be purchased from Boston, United States of America, for the Colonial Development Corporation's poultry project in the Gambia.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of eggs and the breeds of fowls, respectively, ordered for Gambia from the United States of America for which his Department authorised the expenditure of 14,000 dollars.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As these Questions deal with the same subject and as the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Members' permission, deal with them in a single answer and circulate that answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The Colonial Development Corporation sought authority for the purchase of 10,000 hatching eggs of Rhode Island Red strain from the United States of America. Their request was made after exhaustive investigation of the possibility of finding what they needed within the sterling area. The requirements which had to be fulfilled were as follow:

(1) 10,000 hatching eggs of a recognised standard breed must be available, all laid within 48 hours of shipment;
(2) they must come from birds with Pullorum clean records and be of a strain which has proved satisfactory under tropical conditions of battery production;
(3) the eggs must come from a reputable and long established breeder whose establishment

(a) had the best possible disease-free record, having especially in mind Newcastle disease, and
(b) was so situated that the eggs could be transported by heated lorry to a long-range aircraft.

Authority for this purchase from the U.S.A. was given after such further investigations as were considered necessary by the Government. I understand that the Colonial Development Corporation have no present intention of seeking authority for further purchases of hatching eggs from the dollar area.

Gold (Selling Price)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will define the procedure under the rules of the International Monetary Fund for fixing the selling price of gold.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The International Monetary Fund does not fix the price of gold. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14th July by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend have a look at the rules governing the International Monetary Fund, a copy of which I have in my hand and which evidently I have studied more closely than he has, and will he one day come back to the House and explain what the price of gold is? What does the Chancellor do when he wants to change the price?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My hon. Friend is being unduly modest. Nevertheless, if he does seek the information I will be only too happy to meet him and go into this matter to see if collectively we can solve it.

Mr. Stokes: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what the Chancellor does when he wants to change the price of gold? How does he set about it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Each member State has to consult the International Monetary Fund before it makes any change in the par value of its currency.

Mr. Stokes: I beg to give notice that some day or other I shall get to the bottom of this.

British Entertainment Artists, U.S.A.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dollars were remitted to the United Kingdom in the last financial year by British entertainment artists employed in the United States of America.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that no figures of these remittances are available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is costing £470,000 to import American entertainment artists into this country, and is it not a fact that this very largely exceeds the dollar earnings we get from British artists in the United States? Cannot he arrange for reciprocity or for quid pro quo in dollars.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I thought I explained this matter a few days ago

when a similar Question was put to me. It is impossible for us to censor those who go, or to insist on reciprocity as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sterling (India and Pakistan)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the sterling balance claimed as due to India at the end of the war; by how much this had been reduced at the time of the partition of India; and what are the sums claimed by India and Pakistan at the present time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In the Financial Agreement of 14th August, 1947, the sterling assets of undivided India were put at £1,160 million. I regret that I cannot disclose the size of the balances at other dates. Such information as can properly be given about releases from the sterling balances will be made available when the current financial negotiations are completed.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that fairly large sums of sterling have, in fact, been released without any corresponding imports, and that the case for scaling down these balances has been very largely allowed to go by default?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think I can add to the answer I have already given. Negotiations are now proceeding, and an announcement will be made in due course.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there must be all this secrecy about sterling balances. Surely we are entitled to know how much has been paid off during the years since the figure which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned began.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is I understand the accepted practice. I have no doubt it goes back some years, and Governments of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member took this line.

Mr. Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that pre-1939 there ever was a case of balances similar to this? We might have had balances behind the currency of a particular country or Dominion, but nothing in the same class as this. Will he not reconsider


whether it would not be perfectly safe to give the country the information which it ought to have—the amount that is being paid off these balances by unrequited exports?

Mr. Stokes: Would my right hon. Friend consider settling this matter by sending the Indian Government a bill for this amount for saving them from the Japanese?

Colonel Haughton: Would it not be true to say that the final settlement to which the Financial Secretary made reference might lie years ahead, five or ten years in the future?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir, that is quite likely.

Mr. Stanley: Are we never to know it?

Mr. Gammans: If I put a Question down when the House reassembles will the right hon. Gentleman give me the information then, or is it one of those things we are never to hear?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Shall we see the Question on the Paper and then see what sort of an answer it gets?

Timber Substitute (Steel)

Mr. McFarlane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions have been taken on the review by his Department of the proposals of the Timber Development Association in the use of steel as a substitute for timber in relation to our trade with Canada.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has already explained in reply to other recent questions on this subject, our inquiries are covering a wide field, and, it is not yet possible to say when they will be completed.

Mr. John E. Haire: In view of the investigation that has been going on over two months, would my right hon. Friend do his best to expedite the decision?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Certainly, we are doing our best.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER

Thomas Charles Pannell, Esquire, for the Borough of Leeds (West Division), made Affirmation required by law.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

PROCLAMATION, 11TH JULY, 1949 (REVOCATION)

Message from His Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:

His Majesty, by Proclamation, dated the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, having declared the existence of a state of emergency for the purposes of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920:

And it having appeared to His Majesty that the state of emergency has now ceased to exist:

His Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation, dated the twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to proclaim, direct and ordain that the said Proclamation of the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, is revoked.

Message to be considered Tomorrow.—[The Prime Minister.]

NEWSPAPER REPORT (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Blackburn: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise again today the question of Privilege which I mentioned yesterday and I would like to say a few words upon it, because I am in a difficulty. I was very anxious to make it clear that in certain circumstances, gross misrepresentation of this nature, of hon. Member's speeches can be submitted to you for your Ruling that they are, prima facie, a breach of Privilege. I am in the embarrassing position that the Business of the House is such that I feel it would not be appropriate for me to continue with my Motion. I hope that I may content myself with the statement that I do not withdraw one single word that I said yesterday, and that I am doing this only out of deference to the wishes of the House.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. Are we to understand from what has taken place that the matter submitted by my hon. Friend yesterday does, or does not, prima facie raise a matter of Privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The matter has now not been brought to me officially, and therefore there is nothing for me to say.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is a matter of the greatest importance to all of us. Many of our speeches are not reported to our satisfaction in many of the newspapers.


If, every time they are not, we are to be permitted to raise a question of Privilege, the Committee of Privileges is likely to be kept busy. I submit that it is of some importance that we should have a Ruling on the definite matter which my hon. Friend raised yesterday. It was raised as a matter of Privilege and I submit with great respect that we are entitled to a Ruling whether a prima facie case was disclosed or not.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I gave the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) permission to raise the matter today if he so chose. Today he has said he does not choose and does not raise it. There is nothing on which I am called upon to rule.

Mr. S. Silverman: If that means that my hon. Friend no longer invites you to rule that a prima facie case was raised by the circumstances he reported to the House yesterday, of course that ends the matter; but I did not quite gather that that was the form of words that my hon. Friend used.

Mr. Speaker: I was most careful to say yesterday in reply to the hon. Member that if he so chose he could raise it today. I put those words in deliberately.

Mr. Blackburn: It is only out of deference to the wishes of the House as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am wrong, may I proceed with my original Motion? May I bring to the Table the offending copy of the "Daily Worker"?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Copy of newspaper delivered in.

The CLERK (Sir FREDERIC METCALFE) read the passage complained of, as follows:
Mr. R. Blackburn (Labour, King's Norton) … went so far as to accuse the Communists of retaining Buchenwald as a concentration camp … He demanded that the Greek Fascists be given the right to invade Albania.

Mr. Speaker: I have considered that matter as best I could in the circumstances, and I came to the conclusion—and this is as far as I can go—that there is a prima facie case. That is as far as I can go.

Earl Winterton: Is there to be a Motion?

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move,
That the report in the 'Daily Worker' of 22nd July of the speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton is a gross misrepresentation of his speech and a breach of the Privileges of this House.

Earl Winterton: I wish to raise a question—

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. You were about to put the Question, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for someone to raise a matter at that time?

Mr. Speaker: I did not get as far as collecting the voices, when it would not have been in Order.

Earl Winterton: I think I am within the recollection of the House—this is no party matter—in saying that it was long ago agreed in this House that questions of Privilege should be remitted to the Committee of Privileges for their decision. In all the other instances that I recollect, the Motion was moved by the Leader of the House that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges. We are now being asked to devote a valuable afternoon to discussing a matter which should go to the Committee of Privileges. I object most strongly, and I hope that other hon. Members will go into the Lobby with me against the whole proceeding.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the Motion debatable?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Eden: If I may say so, the mistake into which we have fallen is that instead of remitting the question now to the Committee of Privileges we have been asked by the hon. Member—I make no complaint but it was in error, I think—to pronounce upon it before it has ever been to the Committee. That is putting the cart before the horse. I suggest that the normal procedure should be followed by the Leader of the House and that, since you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case, the Committee of Privileges should be asked to pronounce upon it.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There is some misunderstanding about this. It does not follow that the Leader of the House has to move a Motion that a matter of this


kind shall go to the Committee of Privileges. My recollection is that in one case during the lifetime of this Parliament the Motion to refer such a matter to the Committee of Privileges—I hope I am right—was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I do not know if it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who was making that point. If not the Father of the House or somebody else was making it. The Leader of the House is not bound to do this. Sometimes it is convenient and sometimes it is otherwise. If my memory is right, without any consultation with me on that occasion the hon. Member for Oxford moved the reference to the Committee. That disposes of that point.
On the other point, there are plenty of precedents which are regarded as clear cases. With great respect, assuming that it is taken notice of at all, I believe that this is a perfectly clear case. In order to shorten the proceedings, the House is competent—it has in fact done so on a number of occasions—to express itself forthwith.

Mr. Piratin: Without Debate?

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know about that. That is another matter, but the House has done so. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as you are about to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), it is competent for the House to come to a decision forthwith. I do not greatly mind which way it does, but it seems to me that this is a clear case which I should have thought the House could agree, without much discussion, to dispose of and finish. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend was willing not to pursue the matter. Unfortunately—I say that deliberately—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put the hon. Member for King's Norton into a position in which he was bound to proceed. We could have got into a situation in which it would not have been necessary for this to be dealt with, but I believe it is competent for the hon. Member for King's Norton to move his Motion and, if it is your pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that it is in Order, it is competent for the House to approve it. I think it is a clear case.

Mr. Eden: This is not a party matter at all, of course, but it is one of some

importance. I was not complaining about the Leader of the House not moving the Motion, but I thought that somebody should move it and I suggested that he was the appropriate person. As the position is set out in Erskine May, I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Whenever a case of Privilege has been raised since 1909, according to Erskine May, it has been the usual practice in the Commons to refer the matter of the complaint to the Committee of Privileges—it is on page 134—and the House has suspended its judgment until their Report has been presented. I believe that that is what the practice was, and I think that, with great respect, the Leader of the House would be wiser to accept that practice, rather than suddenly leap into a Debate on a matter which has not been before the Commitee at all.

Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you will be good enough to rule what it is competent for the House to do. I do not greatly mind what the House does, but it seems to me that this is a clear case and that it can be dealt with forthwith.

Earl Winterton: It cannot be.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Father of the House really must not be so sure that he is right on procedure, because he is often wrong. I am asking for the advice of the Chair as to whether it is competent for the Motion to proceed. If the House prefers that it should go to the Committee of Privileges, it can go, but I should like to know whether it is competent for us to proceed and deal with the matter forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, the House is undoubtedly competent to deal with the Motion moved by the hon. Member for King's Norton.

Mr. S. Silverman: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that it would be a gross dis-service to the House to proceed in the way which is recommended. My right hon. Friend has suggested that this is a clear case, from which I infer that he thinks that my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton is right. I hope I speak for other hon. Members beside myself when I say that the case does not seem anything like so clear to many of us as it does to my


hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If I were to express an opinion at all, it would be rather the other way. I do not profess to know anything about this; I have only heard what my hon. Friend said yesterday. I heard what was read out from the newspaper and what my hon. Friend read out from the record of what he said in this House. I should have thought that as newspapers go, it was as near to being a fair and accurate summary of what he said as anything—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but the fact that my right hon. Friend has thought it a clear case one way, whereas others think it may be if not clear, at any rate tending the other way, is surely proof conclusive that the House ought not to come to a decision about it without inquiring, without evidence and without giving everybody concerned in it a right to be heard. It is very easy to do this kind of thing to unpopular minorities, but democracy depends, I should have thought, upon seeing that unpopular minorities are as much protected in the exercise of their rights as anybody else in the country.

Mr. Eden: If it would be in Order, I should like to move as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for King's Norton, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add:
the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Blackburn: If it be the wish of the House, I shall be only too glad to accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to know clearly what is happening here. Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, I can raise a question of Privilege from things which are said about me and about reports about me. Now I want to know if I shall get the same consideration when I raise a question of Privilege. I shall be prepared to raise many of them. Shall I get the same consideration as is being shown against the "Daily Worker" at the present time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make allegations against his fellow Members. The Committee of Privileges is appointed by the House and must not be accused of bias.

Mr. Piratin: Before the Question is put, Mr. Speaker, may I recall to the House that two months ago, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Health drew the attention of the House to a report in the "Daily Graphic," which was really an outrageous report on something which the right hon. Gentleman had said and which he refuted in this House. On that occasion the whole House, even the Conservatives, were with the Minister of Health. Nevertheless, the case was not raised as a matter of Privilege or as a matter which should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It was a reflection on the Minister himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was an outside speech."] May I ask you whether we should bring to your attention all such cases of reflections upon hon. Members, so that they may be raised day after day?

Mr. Speaker: Matters of Privilege have to be brought by notice given beforehand, and I have to examine them to find out what they are. They are not brought to me at short notice or if they are, I ask for time to examine them and to see whether they are matters of Privilege or not. The matter to which the hon. Member for Mile End refers, was probably suddenly brought before the House. It was not raised as a matter of Privilege, and therefore it had nothing to do with me.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I raise this point with considerable diffidence and I confess that I do not like raising it but I feel it is the duty of somebody to raise it. The Committee of Privileges is now possessed of this matter and will have the duty which the Committee of Privileges always has, of making a judicial investigation into the complaint and bringing in an objective and judicial report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has expressed a clear opinion. He has said that this is a clear case and I want to ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order whether in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend ought to sit on the Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The Committee of Privileges is set up by the House and one cannot object to one member because of something he has said. One may object


when the report of the Committee of Privileges conies back to the House but, at the present moment, it is impossible to object to a Committee, the members of which are already appointed by the House and cannot be removed except by a Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not raising it as an objection in that sense; I am raising with you, Sir, as a matter of Order and for the guidance of the House, whether in those circumstances the Committee of Privileges ought to put itself in the position, or whether my right hon. Friend ought to put it in the position of making its report seem prejudiced in advance.

Mr. Speaker: It can be discussed when the Committee reports to the House.

Mr. H. Morrison: I can see the point of my hon. Friend. The House has come to a decision and I have no complaint thereon. I have no strong opinion whether it should go to the Committee or be dealt with forthwith, but it is a fair point that is raised and, if it is permissible within the Rules of Procedure, I should not propose to take part in the Committee of Privileges on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As it is well-known to you and to this House that certain members of the Committee of Privileges have shown time and again the most violent prejudice—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not say that. He should withdraw that instantly. That is an imputation against his fellow Members which I cannot allow. The hon. Member must withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The hon. Member will withdraw at once, please.

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say—have shown violent prejudice against Communism and against "The Daily Worker." Am I not entitled to say that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member made allegations against his fellow Members.

They are supposed to be just as loyal as he himself claims to be. We all have the same privileges and the same rights, and one must not attack fellow Members in that way. I ordered the hon. Member to withdraw. I must direct him now to withdraw.

Mr. Gallacher: I withdraw.

Mr. Pritt: On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is possible to consider the statement made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in this sense. It would be very wrong for any member of the Committee of Privileges to display violent bias, but it is part of the function of hon. Members outside that Committee, to display bias. I myself—not that that matters very much—as one who can understand English, understood that the hon. Member was speaking of certain Members having displayed violent bias. I took him to mean outside the Committee. If so, Mr. Speaker, whilst I would not question your Ruling for a moment, it is a matter of much less seriousness.

Mr. Speaker: One could take it that way. If it was meant that way, the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. No doubt he says certain things outside the House but, if he were a Member of the Committee of Privileges no one would suspect him of having bias.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before ten o'clock; and that if the first three Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 103.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
[3.58 p.m.


Acland, Sir R.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)


Albu, A. H.
Alpass, J. H.
Attewell, H. C.




Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pryde, D. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Guy, W. H.
Randall, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Ranger, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Hale, Leslie
Rankin, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Rees-William, D. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Richards, R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Beswick, F.
Haworth, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bing, G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Royle, C.


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Scollan, T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hoy, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Segal, Dr. S.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sharp, Granville


Bramall, E. A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Shurmer, P.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Simmons, C. J.


Burden, T. W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Keenan, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Carmichael, James
King, E. M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Champion, A. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Solley, L. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lang, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Stokes, R. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Swingler, S.


Collins, V. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Symonds, A. L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cook, T. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cooper, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Crawley, A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McKinlay, A. S.
Timmons, J.


Daggar, G.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Titterington, M. F.


Daines, P.
McLeavy, F.
Tolley, L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Vernon, Major W. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walker, G. H.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Deer, G.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Warbey, W. N.


Dobbie, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. M.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, D.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Moody, A. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Morley, R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Moyle, A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Ewart, R.
Nally, W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Farthing, W. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fernyhough, E.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Foot, M. M.
Paget, R. T.
Willis, E.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Pannell, T. C.
Wise, Major F. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woods, G. S.


Gibbins, J.
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Gilzean, A.
Parkin, B. T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pearson, A.



Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Piratin, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grenfell, D. R.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Collindridge and


Grey, C. F.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Mr. Bowden.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pritt, D. N.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. R. S.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Cole, T. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Boothby, R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Baxter, A. B.
Channon, H.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)







De la Bère, R.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. L.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Scott, Lord W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
McCallum, Maj. D.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Spence, H. R.


Gammans, L. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Glyn, Sir R.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gridley, Sir A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Harden, J. R. E.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Haughton, S. G. (Antrim)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing I. L.



Hurd, A.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Colonel Wheatley.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Prescott, Stanley

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1949–50

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £286,596,041 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Production of Groundnuts and with Agricultural Production and the Purchase of Feedingstuffs for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950, namely:

£


Class IX., Vote 2, Ministry of Food
239,580,863


Class II., Vote 9, Colonial Office
573,760


Class II., Vote 11, West African Produce Control Board
4,000,010


Class VI., Vote 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
9,713,398


Class VI., Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)
32,728,010


Total
£286,596,041"


—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,720,825 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Docks Dispute for the year ending on the 31st March 1950, namely:

£


Class V., Vote 5, Ministry of Labour and National Service
17,750,000


Class VI., Vote 13, Ministry of Transport
1,833,300


Class III., Vote 1, Home Office
2,137,525


Total
£21,720,825"


—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — STRIKE, LONDON DOCKS

4.9 p.m.

Sir John Anderson: I am very glad of the opportunity of opening this Debate, for there are certain points which, I think, need clearing up in connection with what I can only describe as a most deplorable muddle. I have no intention of going in detail over the events of the last few weeks. There are, however, certain considerations of a general character which I want to put to the Committee and I

shall refer to incidents of the recent stoppage primarily for the purpose of illustrating the points I want to make.
The first general consideration that I wish to put to the Committee is this: that the Emergency Powers Act and the regulations made thereunder are not to be regarded as in any sense a strike-breaking mechanism. That point, which seems to me from time to time to have been lost sight of, is absolutely fundamental. The organisation is not concerned at all with the merits or demerits of any dispute that may have been the occasion of bringing it into being, and it is exceedingly important that that should be realised for this reason, that an emergency may have to be declared in connection with disputes of widely varying characteristics.
There may be a dispute in which one of the parties commands very wide sympathy, but, nevertheless, if the essentials of life of the country are threatened, an emergency organisation may have to be brought into being. It would be most unfair to patriotic citizens who might wish to render service in that connection and it would be most unfair, for example to the troops whose services may have to be employed, if, by giving assistance to the country in such circumstances, they were in any way to fall under the stigma of acting as blacklegs. That is a point of fundamental importance which ought to be clearly recognised in the form of the emergency organisation set up and in the manner in which that organisation may be used.
The whole purpose of a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act and of the connected regulations is to secure the maintenance of vital public services. Action taken to deal with an industrial dispute may be vitally important, but it brings an entirely different function into play. An emergency organisation cannot be established on the basis of conciliation. Conciliation and all that goes with it, everything that is within the sphere of the Minister of Labour, is very important, but it should not be allowed to dominate the situation.
That fundamental distinction, to which I have called attention, appeared to have been recognised at the outset of the recent dispute when responsibility was placed squarely on the shoulders of the Minister


of Transport. It was he who had the responsibility for appointing the Emergency Committee.
It was he, and he alone, who, under the regulations, had the right to give general or particular instructions to the Emergency Committee. But, is it not a very odd circumstance that, apart from the fleeting visit of the Minister of Transport to the House of Commons when he announced the appointment of the Committee, the Minister of Transport appears to have faded completely out of the picture? We had no statement from him between that date and a brief statement he made in the House yesterday. We have had statements by the Prime Minister, statements by the Home Secretary, but, predominently, we have had statements by the Minister of Labour; never the Minister of Transport.
May I remind the Committee that it was the Minister of Labour who tried to tell the House, in terms which I have here but will not quote, what the Emergency Committee were doing. It is true that later he disclaimed responsibility. On the following day he said, I think quite rightly, that he was not the Minister to whom such questions should be put. Nevertheless, he appears to have been forced, either by his colleagues, or by his Ministry, or both, into a central position in this matter which he ought never to have occupied.
The right hon. Gentleman deserves a good deal of sympathy and I do not want to use words too strong in criticism of his appearances and observations in this House, but the facts I have just brought to the memory of the Committee seem to suggest very strongly that the vital distinction, on which I laid stress a moment ago, between the purposes of the emergency organisation and the whole question of negotiation and conciliation, which is in the sphere of the Minister of Labour, has been overlooked. I hope to make clear to the Committee that the failure to maintain that vitally important distinction has been responsible for a great deal of the deplorable muddle and confusion which has characterised the handling by the Government of the situation which was brought to an end by the declaration made in the House today.
The next point I make is, again, of a general character. In setting up an emergency organisation of the kind we

are now discussing, it is of fundamental importance that the fullest possible use should be made of existing organisations. That also seemed at the outset to have been recognised, for, on Friday, 8th July—several days before the Emergency Proclamation—in my capacity as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, I received a message from the Ministry of Transport asking whether I would make arrangements for representatives of that Ministry to discuss with officers of the authority and others concerned the kind of emergency organisation that should be set up in the probable event of an emergency having to be declared.
There and then arrangements for consultation and discussion were made, and a port emergency committee was set up without statutory authority, on lines on which similar bodies functioned during the war, at the offices of the Port of London Authority. I heard nothing more until the announcement of the appointment of what is called the Maxwell Committee. I wonder why the Government thought it right to depart from the original conception and to place responsibility for the working, of all the services connected with the Port of London in the hands of a committee so constituted.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I make no reflection whatever on the members of the Committee, most of whom are known to me to be men of the highest competence, but I think they were given an impossible task if they were to discharge that task as defined in the regulations. Fortunately, as soon as they appeared on the scene, they discovered that the port emergency committee to which I have referred was already in existence and, very wisely, they decided that the fullest use should be made of that committee. But I think that the appointment under the Regulations of an Emergency Committee of the kind that was set up under the chairmanship of a former Under-Secretary of State in the Home Department was a blunder—and a blunder which might have been quite disastrous.
That brings me to the third point I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee. In a matter of this kind—and, as hon. Members know, I have had some experience—it is absolutely essential to


have the clearest definition of responsibilities and to provide a simple and direct method of obtaining clear and authoritative decisions on any point of difficulty or any point of policy that may arise. I say quite deliberately that none of those essential requirements was met in the organisation that has just been brought to an end. I have no clear impression of what the Maxwell Committee, if I may so describe it, was expected to do. We—by which I mean my officers in the Port of London Authority and those associated with them—were told that the business of the committee was to run the port—just like that. The port has been run and was in fact run perfectly well without them. They were the only channel provided through which advice and, if necessary, decisions from the Government could be obtained.
We were left completely in doubt as to whether the committee had any responsibility whatever in relation to the Dock Labour Board. For example, their position in relation to the Ministry of Transport was, as I have said, clearly laid down in Regulation 1, but Regulation 2, which deals with the allocation of labour, established no clear relationship between the Dock Labour Board and the Port Emergency Committee. I have heard it argued that the Port Emergency Committee had authority over the Dock Labour Board. I do not believe it. I do not think that they had any authority over that body. That body was set up under statute—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think that we are now getting into a confusion of terms. There was a Port Emergency Committee which the right hon. Gentleman says he appointed. He will recollect that he asked that the regulations should be so worded as not to call the other committee the Port Emergency Committee, but the Emergency Committee. That is the committee which he has since called the Maxwell Committee. I think that he is now using the term "Port Emergency Committee" and applying it to the Maxwell Committee.

Sir J. Anderson: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In point of fact, when, on learning that it was proposed to set up such a committee as the Maxwell Committee I asked that it

should be called the Emergency Committee, I did so precisely for the purpose of avoiding any confusion of that kind, because I knew and others knew that the Port Emergency Committee, informally constituted but nevertheless an effective organ, was already in existence. If I inadvertently referred to the other committee as the Port Emergency Committee I was giving it the title which has frequently been given to it in the House and in the Press although it is termed the Emergency Committee. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
The point which I was making was that I do not believe that under the regulations that Emergency Committee had any authority over the Dock Labour Board. If others take a different view I think that the Committee ought to be told and to be given the grounds on which that different view is taken because that was one of the causes of the extraordinary confusion which culminated in a communique on the night of Tuesday last. As I have said, I do not believe that by the regulations the Emergency Committee were given any functions in the sphere of the Dock Labour Board. I do not know what was the extent of the authority of the Emergency Committee. I was told, and I accept it, that there was behind them some organisation of a co-ordinating character to which they were entitled to go, to which they perhaps had to go, in order to obtain authoritative guidance from the Government. Although we were promised a statement showing clearly what that higher organisation was I think I am right in saying that we never received anything of that kind.
Despite the existence of the Emergency Committee, which was supposed to be the repository of executive authority in relation to the affairs of the port, it came to my notice from time to time that something which I can only describe as being in the nature of a departmental veto was still operating. For example, the resources available in the later stages of the stoppage would have enabled meat to be unloaded at the rate of about 7,000 tons a day, but those concerned were informed that the Ministry of Food objected to the unloading of meat at a greater rate than 1,000 tons per day. That may have been a perfectly right decision; I am not suggesting that it was not. What I am sure was not right


was that those concerned should have had that decision conveyed to them on the basis of a veto by a particular Department.
Then again, when the responsible people in the port were in a position to undertake the unloading of grain, they were told that the Ministry of Food objected and for a time grain was not unloaded. I say again that I am not laying it down that that was necessarily a wrong view. Many considerations had to be taken into account including the risk of an extension of the stoppage. What I say emphatically is that it was absolutely wrong that such a decision should have been conveyed on the basis of a veto by a particular Department. Co-ordination is of the most vital importance. After 24 or 48 hours that embargo on the unloading of grain was withdrawn by those who had imposed it. I mentioned these merely as illustrations to show how jerkily and unsatisfactorily the emergency organisation was working.
Before I leave the topic with which I am dealing I would make the point that that kind of confusion and lack of co-ordination is calculated to create a sense of frustration and impotence, and must have been exceedingly encouraging to the strike leaders. I hope that the Committee will be given by the Government spokesman clear answers to the points I have raised. I hope that we shall have a clear explanation of how the Government intended their emergency organisation to work. It is most important that this should be known because the recent stoppage in the Port of London is the third unofficial strike we have had within a comparatively short period. As the Minister of Transport well knows, we may have another before very long. I wish to return to that subject in a moment.
To recapitulate, do the Government agree or do they not as to the distinction which I have drawn between the operational problem, which is the business of an emergency organisation, and the Ministry of Labour function of negotiation and conciliation? Why was the original idea abandoned of concentrating responsibility in the hands of existing authorities, subject only to effective liaison with the Government? What steps were taken to make the functions of the Maxwell Committee and the limits of their discretion

clear to all concerned. In particular what, in the view of the Government, was the extent of their responsibility in the sphere of the Dock Labour Board? These are all matters which need to be cleared up.
There are two other points which I feel bound to raise before I conclude. They are of a more detailed character. The first concerns the extraordinary action which was taken by the Government last Tuesday night. It amazed me. I believe that it was the direct result of the muddle and confusion which I have been describing. I wish in that connection to put three questions to which I hope we shall have clear answers because a very serious situation is arising. The credit and the authority of the Dock Labour Board have really been undermined.
The first question is this: was the Prime Minister aware when he issued his communique in the early hours of last Wednesday morning of the words used by the Minister of Labour on 4th July? I quoted them myself a few days ago. I assert that I am confident he was not aware of them. The second point is this: the Minister of Labour, when he was dealing with this matter on 20th July, hinted rather obscurely that there were delicate negotiations in progress affecting lightermen, I think, which made the pronouncement of the Dock Labour Board inopportune and possibly mischievous. Were any steps taken to warn either the Maxwell Committee or the Dock Labour Board of the existence of those negotiations? The third point is this: did the Prime Minister, when he issued that communique, realise that the action taken by the Dock Labour Board—whatever view one may take of that—was clearly within their function as defined in the statute under which they were set up?

Mr. Mellish: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government had to bear in mind that there were 11,000 dockers still at work and that the suggestion of the Dock Labour Board, appointed without any consultation or authority, might have had the consequence of involving many of those people who were still loyally carrying out their jobs? Was it not opportune that the Government should say that they, as a Government authority, repudiated it?

Sir J. Anderson: With great respect, that has nothing to do with the point I am making. I expressly stated that I was expressing no view on the advisability or otherwise of the pronouncement made by the Dock Labour Board. I am not in a position to pass judgment on the Dock Labour Board; and I am strongly inclined to suggest that the Government were not in a position to do that either. The point which I am putting to the Government is quite clear. Was the Prime Minister aware of the statutory position of the Dock Labour Board? In Section 2 (7) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946, under the authority of which the Dock Labour Board functions, this position is created; I quote the exact words:
A scheme"—
that is to say a dock labour scheme—
may be revoked by order of the Minister made in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act either on the joint application of such bodies of persons as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section"—
which are the bodies from which a dock labour board is constituted—
or otherwise.
Therefore the Dock Labour Board had the right to initiate action, and believe me, there had been several attempts made before that announcement was issued to obtain some clear indication of the views of those in authority on the whole subject. That is a matter on which I do not wish to comment.
I have put three questions to which I think we should have answers, because I take the view that the flat-footed repudiation by the Government of the pronouncement of a responsible statutory authority which was not subject, either under general law or under Emergency Regulations, to control or direction by the executive Government, was most ill-advised. It might have had, and may well yet have, the most unfortunate consequences. I put that in all seriousness. I am not trying to make points against individual Ministers, or to indulge in recriminations; but we have been confronted with a very serious situation, and the considerations to which the hon. Member who interrupted called attention, I am sure, were very much a matter of concern to those working at the port during this unfortunate stoppage.
I said at the beginning, and I repeat, that the function of conciliation and

negotiation is vitally important, but it must not be allowed to dominate the administration of Emergency Regulations which have nothing to do with the merits of the dispute. It may, and should, be taken into account, but we should not be in the position that we have had throughout this stoppage, with the Minister of Labour appearing in the centre of the picture as though the whole thing pivoted on him. That was a position which, in my view, the Government should not have allowed to arise. In fact, I think it was very unfortunate from the point of view of the Minister of Labour himself to whom I extend my sympathy for what it may be worth.
I now come to a detail of great importance. May I ask what is to be done about those who have been responsible for fomenting the recent trouble? I am quite sure that no one would wish to penalise the masses who have been betrayed by an appeal to their traditional loyalties; not for one moment. But what about those who exploited them? Are those unofficial strike leaders, who have defied the trade union leaders and the Government, and who, as I have said, have exploited the loyalties of the mass of the workers, to go back with cries of triumph, which is their present attitude of mind? Are they to be allowed to resume positions in which they can carry on this insidious undermining of loyalties, and prepare for a further stoppage?
Or will the Minister of Labour, within whose sphere this sort of thing certainly does come, instruct his people to sit down with the Dock Labour Board—and I have no doubt that in the public interest the board would be willing to let bygones be bygones—and work out some arrangement which will offer us some hope that we shall not have this trouble all over again in a few months. I hope we shall have a clear statement on all these practical points which I have endeavoured to put, I hope with sufficient brevity, but with adequate emphasis.

Mr. Mellish: In view of the position he holds as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, will the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point, which is very important? He talks about the unofficial strike leaders, but I hope he does not mean those people, ordinary dock


workers, who were acting in an unofficial capacity and who were duped just as much as anyone. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman made that threat about what might happen to the unofficial strike leaders he did not mean those people.

Sir J. Anderson: If the hon. Member will read what I have just said he will realise that I made two points quite clear. I think that the masses whose loyalty is not in question should not be penalised. In regard to the others there should be a process of examination, which implies discrimination.

4.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I had not intended to intervene until the end of the Debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was proposing to intervene at this stage, but I think it will be agreed that from the outset of his speech the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) was dealing with questions which he quite rightly stated were outside the scope of the duties of the Minister of Labour. During the past few weeks the Minister of Labour has been subjected in this House to a number of questions from all parts of the Opposition benches which clearly were not within his sphere. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has said that somebody else ought to have answered, but day after day the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) put down Private Notice Questions to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Eden: If this is to be a complaint to the Opposition, of course it is open to the Government—as has been known for generations in this House—if any other Minister is considered to be responsible to allow him to answer the question. I made this arrangement with the Minister of Labour, and he never suggested any one else. I should have been delighted if the Prime Minister had taken part in the business.

Mr. Ede: The first question from the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington was directed, I think properly, to the Minister of Labour, for he was concerned in the first question with this strike, or lockout, or stoppage or

whatever term one cares to put to it. But supplementary questions on that which were of the widest possible character, were added, and my right hon. Friend, perhaps with a generosity for which his colleagues must be grateful, undertook to answer. A question was put to him last Thursday by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). That was followed by a question to myself from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) after my right hon. Friend had said that it was a matter within the competence of the Home Secretary. I at once intervened when the question was put to me. Had questions been put to other Ministers, they would have been answered.
I accept fully the preliminary words of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. The Emergency Powers Act expressly precludes from its operation the breaking of a strike or the prevention of peaceful picketing. Neither of those two things is an offence, nor can they be made offences under the Emergency Powers Act.

Sir J. Anderson: That Act also prohibits conscription of labour.

Mr. Ede: It is a nice point which has occurred to me as an ex-soldier whether, when troops are ordered into the docks—whether under an Emergency Powers Act or not—that may not be a conscription of labour.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman should not raise that, because that is a very important matter. It conflicts with the Army Act. I hope that he will not insist on the point even if he makes it only frivolously.

Mr. Ede: I am not saying anything frivolously. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is mischievous."] Neither is it mischievous. I am dealing with a situation that has arisen and that may arise. It is clear that action under the Emergency Powers Act is confined to serving the vital needs of the community and to keeping going the nation's life. That was the situation that we had to confront in the London Docks.
At the time we issued the Emergency Proclamation there were some 300 ships idle. That was a situation that we could not allow to continue. It is true that we were informed that this Port Emergency


Committee—established on an informal basis, I think the right hon. Gentleman said, by the Port of London Authority—was in existence. The suggestion was made to us that some such body should be the Emergency Committee which we proposed to appoint—not necessarily the same people, but a body constituted on similar lines. We gave very serious consideration to that suggestion. We came to the conclusion that that was not the proper body to handle such an emergency as this. [Interruption.] I was thinking of a dispute which developed later, to which the right hon. Gentleman gave some attention. This was not the proper body because it might result in a cleavage of opinion with no power, as far as we knew, of ending the cleavage in the national interest.

Sir J. Anderson: When I urged that such a body as the informal Port Emergency Committee should be used, I added the words, "with proper provision for liaison with the Government so that authoritative decisions could be sought and conveyed with the minimum of delay."

Mr. Ede: Yes. We contend that the arrangement that we ultimately made achieved that end. Until the Emergency Powers Act was brought into force by the Proclamation, the ordinary commercial practices of the port would prevail and the order of the ships being brought to the dockside might be those which would satisfy the commercial needs of the port, but they might not, of necessity, meet the national requirements. The matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were cases in point.
We were concerned to see that the various commodities in the rations of the people should be maintained. It appeared at one stage that one firm, which actually issued a statement, thought that because we would not let ships carrying cargoes—

Sir J. Anderson: Tate and Lyle?

Mr. Ede: Yes. One firm thought that because we would not let ships carrying their cargoes come to the dockside we were jeopardising that particular commodity. We had to decide, in the light of the situation from day to day, how we were to secure that the proper ships were in fact brought to the dockside.
We decided that it was better that there should be a small committee of five distinguished people of considerable experience in administration and in the handling of affairs, who would be able to convey to the various interests concerned, and to the shipowners, in what order the ships should be handled. The right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks that there was muddle. We started on 13th July with 340 ships idle. Last Saturday, the last day on which troops were employed, we had reduced that number to fewer than 20, and we had ensured that the ships should be brought to the dockside in the order that was required to meet the national emergency which had arisen.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but this matter is very important. The business of settling in what order ships should be handled is a matter which has to be dealt with in the ordinary course of port working every day. The port authorities have to inform themselves as best they can as to orders of priority. This does not work automatically. An emergency organisation is not required to run the port in order to ensure that priorities are properly handled.

Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that is exactly what we did find.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is 'we'?"]—The Government. Clearly, it is understood that when I use the word "we," I am referring to the Government. The task which confronted us was to ensure that this great port should work, and should work with priorities which would meet the national needs. We had to be assured that when we required a certain priority to be met, that priority would be met. When the Minister of Food said that one commodity was more important than another, it was essential that steps should be taken and the information conveyed to the people concerned. That was why the Committee, presided over by Sir Alexander Maxwell, was set up.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Emergency Committee had power over the National Dock Labour Board. We took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and they advised us that that was so and that the Emergency Committee was charged with the duty of securing the loading and the unloading of ships—and, as far as I know, the loading and unloading of ships cannot


be accomplished without labour. The statutory body for dealing with the Port of London is the Port of London Dock Labour Board, which is one of the subsidiary bodies under the National Dock Labour Board. Under the scheme, it is impossible to employ anyone other than a registered dock worker without breaking the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. It was essential, in view of the fact that we were considerably short of labour, that other people should be brought in, and I hope I shall not be accused of being frivolous when I say that it was essential that we should establish the position that the people we proposed to bring in were, in fact, eligible to work in the docks, and if we had not taken the steps which we did there might have been the greatest doubt about that.
The right hon. Gentleman addressed to me three questions. He asked if the Prime Minister was aware of the words used by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 4th July. He was quite aware of them, but the statement of my right hon. Friend and the statement of Lord Ammon differed in this—that Lord Ammon fixed a deadline. Unless the men returned to work at 7.45 a.m. on Thursday, 21st July, certain drastic consequences were to follow. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Might follow."] No, he did not say that.

Sir J. Anderson: He said that the scheme might be placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Ede: No, he did not.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Will the Home Secretary read the words?

Mr. Ede: All right. The continued existence—[Interruption.] I hope the Committee will realise that I am not trying, and that I never try, to score a false point. There was the document—

Sir J. Anderson: May I help the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Ede: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote from memory, I do not know whether it would help. I am very sorry, but I am sure the Committee will realise that I only intervened at this stage for what I thought was the

convenience of the Committee, and I have not had time—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: May I quote the passages for the right hon. Gentleman?
The men must realise that by their present conduct they may be imperilling the future of the Dock Labour Scheme …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 1797–8.]
That was the Minister.
Failure to return to work will jeopardise the very existence of the scheme.
That was the board.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, and I want the Committee to realise that that follows the imperative instruction to return to work at 7.45 a.m. on Thursday, 21st July. It was their duty under the scheme, just as it is supposed to be the duty of hon. Members of this House to attend while it is sitting, and do not let us be too certain about condemning other people. It was their duty under the scheme, but it is one thing to deal with it in the general terms that were used by my right hon. Friend, which were intended to be a grave warning, and to fix a deadline in the way that was done by Lord Ammon in his communication. May I just read two consecutive sentences?:
In view of the foregoing statement, the National Dock Labour Board orders all dock workers now on strike to return to work at 7.45 a.m. on Thursday, 21st July. Failure to return to work will jeopardise the very existence of the scheme which former dock workers in the present organisations have struggled to achieve.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the next paragraph?

Mr. Ede: Yes.
The Board urges them to respect this loyalty to the workers of the past, and thus help to secure the benefits of the scheme for their sons.
In the debate which took place on the reply to the Gracious Message from the Throne, I used rather different words. I pointed out the great advantages of the scheme and said that I thought it was the duty of the dock workers to organise such a scheme responsibly; and I deplore as much as anyone else the irresponsible behaviour which has from time to time lost for these men some of the benefits which this scheme should have brought to them.
But the Government, who had not been consulted by Lord Ammon about the issue of this document, had every reason to know that the two sentences in juxtaposition in his document would have the most widespread effect on the dockers, not merely in the Port of London, but in every port in the country, and we could not allow it to go out that the irresponsible action of the 11,000 or 12,000 men, that were out in London, should jeopardise a scheme which brought security and a sense of some pride in their calling to something like 120,000 dock workers throughout the country. We were assured that that was the position.
May I say that, before we took the decision to issue our statement in reply, we called in the Chairman of the Emergency Committee to inquire whether he had been consulted about it. It is known that, in the week prior to the issue of his statement, Lord Ammon was detained at home owing to a fall which he had had, and, during that week when he was not there, there was daily consultation between the Emergency Committee and Sir Douglas Ritchie, who was the acting Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board in the absence of Lord Ammon, or with his chief officials, including the Secretary of the Board.
On the Monday, Lord Ammon saw the Chairman of the Emergency Committee, and I think some of the other members, and he showed them a document which he proposed to issue. They criticised it and said they did not think that it would be helpful, and they suggested that certain words might be introduced. Lord Ammon took his document away with the suggested words, and the closing courtesies between Sir Alexander Maxwell and Lord Ammon indicated that Lord Ammon would be expected at the Emergency Committee's offices next day with a revision which they could consider to see whether it could be safely issued. Instead of doing that, the document which we believed was likely to precipitate a serious nation-wide crisis was issued without further consultation. We felt, therefore, that it was essential, in the interests of the nation, that the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister caused to be issued should be sent out.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the

House whether that document was issued with or without the amendment suggested by the Maxwell Committee?

Mr. Ede: I think the Amendment that they suggested was in the preliminary part of the document, but the remainder of it was not the document that had been shown to them, nor was the document on the lines of the suggestions made by Sir Alexander Maxwell to Lord Ammon.

Mr. Baxter: Did the Government take any exception to the board ordering the dockers to return on a certain date and at a specified time, quite apart from the later implied words? Was any exception taken to that, or do the Government approve it now?

Mr. Ede: Exception was taken then and is taken now to ordering the men back on a dead-line like that at a time when it was obvious that there was a great deal of inflammable material about which might be ignited by this action.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I am not quite clear just what was the discussion which took place between the Maxwell Committee and the National Dock Labour Board over this document. Was the objection to the deadline alone, or to the deadline coupled with some other phrase about jeopardising the scheme.

Mr. Ede: I am doing my very best to be quite frank with the Committee, and if there is any point I have not made clear I welcome the opportunity of doing so. The suggestion which Lord Ammon first brought to Sir Alexander Maxwell was that the whole 15,000 men should be declared outside the dock scheme. I ask anyone who knows the clan spirit which exists between dockers in all the ports of this country what the effect of that pronouncement would have been. I have no doubt what would have happened, and I do not think that anyone who has a constituency in which this type of labour is employed has any doubt either. I regret that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was not prepared to leave the question where it was because I do not want, unnecessarily, to make future working with the National Dock Labour Board difficult. I would not have disclosed what was the first proposal had I not been pressed.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is an extraordinary excuse for the right hon. Gentleman to put forward. I was asking about the conversation which took place between the Maxwell Committee and the National Dock Labour Board. I thought that was a perfectly proper question to ask because the right hon. Gentleman was discussing the point, and I wanted to know what it was to which the Maxwell Committee took exception. Then the right hon. Gentleman came back with some other suggestion made by Lord Ammon.

Mr. Ede: I now have the document and I apologise to the House that, having been advanced in the batting order beyond my usual lonely position as wicket-keeper, I was not fully prepared with the documents. I will read from the minutes of the meeting of the Emergency Committee for the Port of London held on Tuesday, 19th July, when Lord Ammon reported that the following resolution had been passed:
That this Board authorises the chairman together with Mr. Arthur Bird and Sir Douglas Ritchie, after consultation with the Emergency Committee, to inform the London Board that the National Board considers that all men who are in breach of the scheme should be given notice that unless they make themselves available for full resumption of work by a date to be fixed they are summarily dismissed under Clause 16 (2, d) of the scheme.
I hope that makes it quite clear that we knew the temper which lay behind the document that was, in fact, finally issued.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I appreciate the information which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the House, but I wish to put to him two points which I think are of some importance. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the document issued by Lord Ammon, I take it that it was the document of the board. Is that so? My second point is, was the Board within its legal rights in issuing that document on its own authority, or, if in the Government's view it was not, had it ever been so informed?

Mr. Ede: We had taken the opinion of the Law Officers which was to the effect that the National Dock Labour Board and anyone else concerned with the working of the port were, by the emergency regulations and the appointment by the Minister of Transport of the

Emergency Committee, placed under that Emergency Committee.

Mr. Strauss: Had they been told that?

Mr. W. J. Brown: It is on that point that I wish to ask a question. Whoever was responsible for this clash between the National Dock Labour Board, on the one side, the Emergency Committee on the other, and Ministers at a still later stage, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that clash was extremely unfortunate from the public point of view. When the Emergency Committee was set up at the beginning, were steps taken to acquaint the dock people as to the relative areas of authority to be exercised by the Emergency Committee and the Dock Labour Board?

Mr. Ede: There were no areas of authority. The relationship between the Emergency Committee and the National Dock Labour Board throughout the first week was of the friendliest description.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South) indicated dissent.

Mr. Ede: It is no good the hon. and gallant Member shaking his head. The relationship was quite friendly, and there were daily consultations between the Emergency Committee and the representatives of the National Dock Labour Board.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Were the Dock Labour Board informed that they were under the authority of the Emergency Committee? That is the question that was asked. If they were not, they ought to have been.

Mr. Ede: No, I do not think they were. In our view, the emergency regulations are quite clear. We were astounded at the action of Lord Ammon in issuing this statement. Ships cannot be loaded and unloaded without labour, and, in the ordinary course, the only people who can supply labour to the London docks are the London Dock Labour Board. Inasmuch as the Emergency Committee was charged with the loading and unloading of ships, it is clear that the National Dock Labour Board, who would supply the labour, had to be responsible to them for the way they discharged their duties, whether they were statutory or not.
The next thing that I am asked is whether the Maxwell Committee were informed of the negotiations with the lightermen. Certainly they were; they were informed of the negotiations with the lightermen.

Sir J. Anderson: Or the Dock Labour Board?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. From what I have just said it is clear that the proper persons for us to communicate with as a Government were the Emergency Committee whom we had set up to have complete oversight of the port.

Sir J. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that on that point he is directly challenged.

Mr. Ede: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that.

Sir J. Anderson: I only want to make it clear that the view that was taken in the port was that the Dock Labour Board were not in any way made subordinate to the Emergency Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says they were.

Mr. Ede: I have given the Committee my reasons for thinking they were. They may be good, bad or indifferent reasons, but they were the reasons that caused us to accept the position that the Emergency Committee were in complete control of the Board.
I now come to the third question that was put to me. I apologise for the length of time that I am taking. I do not know whether a computation can be taken of what percentage of my time has been taken up by my own speech and how much has been taken up by questions from various quarters of the Committee. The third question was: Was the Prime Minister aware of the National Dock Labour Board's special statutory position? Certainly he was. We discussed this matter; I hope I am not doing anything that is contrary to the Official Secrets Act if I say that the Attorney-General was present at the interviews at which we discussed this matter, and advised us as to the proper position.
I am now leaving the question of the emergency. I hope I have established the fact that so far from there being any

muddle, the policy of the Government was consistent throughout. They asked Parliament for emergency powers so that they could work this Board. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport appointed an Emergency Committee. It is true that he committed the sin of not appointing the kind of Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Port of London Authority wanted. For that we accept responsibility; the responsibility is ours and we accept it. I have endeavoured to show to the Committee that, in our view, it was essential that on that Emergency Committee there should not be represented any one of the interests whose particular position might become the matter of controversy on the body that was actually issuing the orders.
There have been other strikes and industrial disputes in the London Docks. They have lasted far longer than this. They have left behind them bitterness on both sides which, I hope, will be absent from this. But I do not want to delude anyone into thinking that I do not share the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about the irresponsibility and, to my mind, the wickedness of some of the people who have been engaged in this enterprise. This matter originated in people coming to this country from Canada towards the end of last year, before this voyage of the "Beaverbrae" took place, and opening a London office which they closed the day after the men decided to return to work. I had the advantage of picking up three gentlemen of alien blood, and none of them, apparently, even of English descent—for there are some people of alien blood who are of English descent and who generally hold the kind of views about these matters which are generally shared in this House of Commons.
Those men had been attending the Communist International—a dockers' conference at Marseilles. On one of them we found an invitation from the London unofficial lockout committee inviting him to come to this country. Really, they should instruct their agents not to be so careless about the preservation of incriminating documents. There has been a final episode. It was announced in Victoria Park that the Assistant Minister of Labour in Canada had apparently, some time towards the end of last week, decided that he would do


something in Canada to end the dispute in England. I can get no confirmation of that from any quarter. What settled the dispute was the decision of the corn porters, English trade unionists, that they were not going to be made the cats-paw of these people any longer, and they decided to return to the "Beaverbrae" and to work it on Monday. It was then necessary to find some face-saving device for the people who had misled these men to use at the Victoria Park meeting.
I do not believe that the 15,000 good, honest dockers who came out in accordance with their long-preserved tradition of solidarity, which is a thing which is to be welcomed when it is used reasonably, feel that they have had a triumph. A few leaders who escaped from Victoria Park got away with it. But two of them will not get out of the country just yet. I do not want to say anything more, because there is a case pending, but I feel myself, in view of the depth of the feelings that are aroused in dockers when this appeal to international solidarity is made, that to have brought this dispute to a conclusion—and this is a matter with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will deal more fully—in so short a time, in view of the history of this calling, is a matter of which the Government need not be ashamed.
We asked the House to give us emergency powers to work the Port of London; we worked it. We are sorry we have not earned the admiration of the Chairman of the Port of London Authority. We may well have made some mistakes for, unlike him, we are merely human.

Mr. Osborne: That is rather cheap.

Mr. Ede: I do not recognise the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) as a good controller of the market.
I believe that the lessons of the recent weeks, when they sink into the minds of the dockers, will assure us that they will not so easily again be misled as they were on this occasion.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: These are sombre matters which we are discussing this afternoon and I am bound to say that, as I sat and listened to the very short speech made by the right hon.

Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), I thought I had never heard a more devastating indictment of the Government. I want to follow up a few of the points he made and to deal with one or two of the points which the Home Secretary made in his reply. But I would like to say at the outset that I think it is important not to forget the background against which that dock strike took place. That background was a national crisis in which the whole future of the dockers and everybody else in this country was at stake. I think it is indeed a sad thing, to put it no higher, that at that moment the crisis had not been sufficiently brought home to such large sections of the community.
The second thing I want to say is that, while we can examine what happened in the dock strike, what I think we have to bear in mind is the future just as much as the last three weeks. What we have to be concerned about is whether, if the same sort of situation should arise again, in the docks or on the railways or in the coal mines, we shall find ourselves in the same kind of position; because I do not think any Government or any country could very often go through the sort of exhibition we have been going through in the last few months.
I thought the Home Secretary was a little unhappy in the speech he made. He started by what I thought was a most astonishing charge. He tried to say that, at some time or another, the Opposition, by putting their Questions to the Minister of Labour, had somehow compelled the Government to concentrate responsibility upon that unfortunate Minister. If that is not what he meant, then it did not seem to me that his statement had very much relevance to the Debate.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour generously undertook to answer Questions that were not properly within his purview. I did not say the Government concentrated anything on him.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I heard most of those Questions and I saw the Front Bench opposite at the time. The Prime Minister was there most of the time, and if there was ever an occasion upon which the Prime Minister ought to have taken charge of the situation, that was such an occasion.
That was the right hon. Gentleman's opening gambit in reply. The next thing he said was that the Maxwell Committee had been appointed for a specific purpose, and that specific purpose was to lay down the priority in which the ships were to be unloaded. I am not concerned to argue whether that is a wise thing or not a wise thing, but it did not seem to me that at that stage, if I had been running the National Dock Labour Board, I should necessarily have assumed that a body designed to decide the priorities in which ships were to be unloaded necessarily had any command over the National Dock Labour Board; nor I think, as events showed, did the National Dock Labour Board think so.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member will permit me to interrupt again—and, after all, I did not make an uninterrupted speech—I may say that I have just received a message from Sir Alexander Maxwell which enables me to deal with the point. I have received it since I sat down. On the second day after the committee's appointment, Sir Alexander Maxwell met the Dock Labour Board and told them they were subject to the Emergency Committee on questions of policy. He met representatives of the Board.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am afraid I did not quite follow that. Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat it?

Mr. Ede: On the second day after the Committee's appointment, Sir Alexander Maxwell met representatives of the Board and told them that they were subject, on questions of policy, to the Emergency Committee, and until Lord Ammon returned, that was accepted by the Board.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not want to put it unfairly because I am most anxious to be fair, but it appears that there was considerable doubt—to put it no higher than that—about what were the relations of those two bodies, and the best evidence of that is the fact that the Government themselves had to take the opinion of the Law Officers to find out. Surely the right way to deal with a matter of that kind is quite simple: it is to have the chairman of the National Dock Labour Board and the head of the Emergency Committee in the room with the Prime Minister, or whoever is in charge, and to

say exactly what are the relations one to another. That is the simple way. It is not right and it is not proper to leave it in such doubt that the opinion of the Law Officers has to be taken.
The next point that the right hon. Gentleman made was with regard to the emergency powers. I simply ask for information upon this subject. I understood him to say that the emergency powers were taken in order to make it possible for the troops to work in the docks. I may have misunderstood him—I am not an expert in this matter—but I did not previously understand that it was necessary to have emergency powers to enable the troops to work in the docks; and if that was not the purpose, we should like at some stage in the Debate someone from the Front Bench to say exactly why the emergency powers were, in fact, asked for.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the statement made by the Dock Labour Board and the negotiations with the Emergency Committee or shall we call it the Maxwell Committee. I would repeat a question which was asked by my right hon. Friend: Did the Prime Minister know, or did he not know, at the time he repudiated the statement of the Dock Labour Board, what the Minister of Labour had previously said? When the right hon. Gentleman repeated all those statements today—on the one hand, from the Dock Labour Board about the jeopardy into which this labour scheme would be placed and, on the other hand, the peril to the scheme according to the statement of the Minister of Labour—it still did not appear to me that there was any substantial difference whatsoever between the two statements which had been made.
I think the questions which we ought to ask ourselves in this Debate are as follows, and the test of whether the Government have handled this matter properly must rest upon the answers to these questions. Did the Government make sure that some one person or body was really in charge of what was happening, or did they not? That is the first question. However generous one wants to be, I cannot believe that one could answer that question in the affirmative. There were two Emergency Committees, a fact which I did not appreciate until I came to the House this afternoon; and


there was even some mysterious body in the background of the second Emergency Committee. If I am wrong, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will correct me, but I understood quite clearly that two Emergency Committees were appointed, one which we know as the Emergency Committee and the other which we know as the Port Emergency Committee.

Mr. Ede: The second was the informal committee which the Chairman of the Port of London Authority appointed without consulting anybody. The Chairman of the Port of London Authority is not the Government.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I quite appreciate that the Chairman of the Port of London Authority is not in the Government and I do not think he would wish to be in a matter of this kind, but the fact is that there were two Emergency Committees, an unknown body in the background, the National Dock Labour Board and the Government—all of them having some say in these proceedings.
The second question I think we ought to ask ourselves, if separate, new bodies were created for the purpose of the emergency, would be: Was it made absolutely plain what were the relations of one to the other? Were the responsibilities of those who were dealing with conciliation and those who were responsible for dealing with the emergency and the running of the port clearly parcelled out? To my mind it is perfectly obvious from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech that nothing of the kind, in fact, happened.
The third question is: Did the Government do their utmost not only to collect all the known facts about the thing but to make those facts known to the dockers and to the National Dock Labour Board and to the House of Commons? I shall have a word or two to say about that in a few moments. The fourth question is: Did they take the minimum of the extraordinary powers and use them with the maximum vigour? They took the emergency powers, but up to the present time I am not at all clear that they have used them at all. The fifth test is: In the outcome of this strike is it plain who, in fact, was in control of the situation? Was it the Government or was it the unofficial strikers? I regret to have to say that it was perfectly plain in the

last stages of the strike where that answer lay.
I want to say a few words about who was in charge of this dispute. I understand that the National Dock Labour Board quite early on consulted the Government as to whether the dockers should be put to work in the two Canadian ships or not This is the statement of the Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board. It may be right or it may be wrong. It will be answered, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman who replies to the Debate for the Government. However, according to Lord Ammon, the Government were consulted upon that matter. I dare say they should have been. Later on we find the Chief Industrial Commissioner to the Ministry saying on 5th June:
We do not wish to influence the Board in their judgment as to the steps they should take in connection with the Canadian ships, the "Beaverbrae" and the "Argomont." It must, of course, be clear that the Board and the employers take full responsibility for any decision in the matter and for any action which may be taken.
We could not have a better illustration of the uncertainty about who, in fact, was in charge. Either the Government had to make that decision or the Board had to make that decision. I emphasise this, not only in relation to this strike, but because, in the unhappy world in which we live, it may be relevant in the future in another dispute in another industry.

Mr. Daines: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the date of that? Was that before the men actually came out, or when?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am reading from an article by Lord Ammon as to his statement—

Mr. Daines: In the "News of the World"?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, in the "News of the World." Lord Ammon, after all, held a responsible office. [HON. MEMBERS: "He still does."] He said:
Early on, at the request of the Ministry of Labour, the Board agreed to isolate the Canadian ships for a time in the hope that some agreement might be reached.
I am not saying whether it was right or not. I am saying that at that stage in the proceedings it was the Ministry of Labour that was taking the initiative. On 15th June, Sir Robert Gould wrote the


other letter to which I have just referred, which passed the responsibility back again to the National Dock Labour Board. What I am saying is that one or the other must be right. The responsibility for a matter so important, cannot be in two places at the same time.
The next point I wish to raise is on this question of the information. According to Lord Ammon, a statement had been made available by the High Commissioner for Canada to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour had acknowledged it and said it had been most helpful and was enabling him to approach the problem here with confidence as regards the facts—which is a very courteous reply when criticism is made that he put that document in a pigeon hole and did not make it available to the National Dock Labour Board. I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether that is so or not. I also want to know whether the Minister of Transport, who, after all, has considerable responsibilities in this matter, was informed of that statement at that time.
Now, if I may turn to the discussions which took place on 19th July and 20th July, it seems, according to Lord Ammon, that closer liaison was asked for between the National Dock Labour Board and the Emergency Committee. It does appear that, in fact, discussions did take place between the two, and that in that respect the earlier statement of Lord Ammon, at least, did not convey the impression which was the correct one. He suggested that no liaison took place between the two sides. That was not true, I understand. They did, in fact, meet. They met on 19th July, the day when the document was discussed. The right hon. Gentleman has given us some partial account of what took place upon that occasion. He has told us so much that I really think we ought to know the full account of what took place. Lord Ammon, still under the impression—and we must take his view about this—that he was not subordinate to the Emergency Committee, arrives there with the document. According to the Home Secretary, that document in its original form—that is, if I understood him aright—contained some very tough propositions, that the men should go back, or if they did not, that they would have some period of notice, or be dismissed.

The exact terms can be given us by the right hon. Gentleman when he replies.

Mr. Ede: I have them.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I did not write down what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I was not attempting to give the terms verbatim. However, they were stern measures which Lord Ammon proposed at that stage. He then talked them over with the Maxwell Committee. The Maxwell Committee then made certain suggestions, and suggested one or two Amendments which, in fact, were incorporated, as I understand it, in the final document which was then published. Did the Maxwell Committee suggest any alternative course? Did they suggest what other steps should be taken? Did they say that any instructions ought to be given to the men as to when to return?
I read Lord Ammon's statement, the statement of the National Dock Labour Board, upon this matter, and it seemed to me to be eminently sensible—that there was considerable confusion in the minds of the dockers as to what the position was, and that unless some particular date was given—I am leaving aside the other matter about jeopardy—unless some particular date was given about return, it would be probable that no one would, in fact, return in time. Was some other suggestion made? Was there opposition to a fixed date at all? I think we ought to be given a much clearer account of what the Emergency Committee were really trying to put over at that particular moment. The Dock Labour Board then issued their statement and a meeting took place at an early hour on the morning of 20th July. I am talking about the meeting of the Government.

Mr. Ede: It was at a late hour on the night before.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged—at a late hour on the night before. At that stage it was decided to repudiate the statement of the National Dock Labour Board. Now, that was a very serious decision indeed, not only for its immediate effects, but for its effects in the future on the whole prestige of the National Dock Labour Board. Was Lord Ammon invited to attend that meeting? Was any communication held with him as to the wisdom or otherwise of the decision?

Mr. Ede: I can answer that straight away. During the meeting he was communicated with by telephone and a conversation of some minutes took place. Lord Ammon lives at Brixton, it was late at night, and if a statement was to be issued it was impossible to get him from Brixton to Downing Street in time for the statement to be made, so the Prime Minister had a telephone conversation with him.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Really. That is, if I may say so, the most astonishing statement we have yet had.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman asked me if any communication was made. It was a fair question, and I suggest I gave a fair answer.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not suggesting it was an unfair answer. I said it was an astonishing one, which is a very different matter. There is Lord Ammon, the head of this most important National Dock Labour Board, who in the middle of a great dock strike issues a statement, which I think everybody agrees he was perfectly entitled to issue under the terms of the Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is a dispute about that. Anyway, he issues that statement, and he is head of the Board. Indeed, it is not only he who issues it; it is not a personal statement of his own; it is a statement of the National Dock Labour Board, having on it trade union representatives, men of life-long experience in this industry. Is it impossible to get him from Brixton, or to get some of the other members of the Board, before the decisive action is taken completely to turn this down, and with it to denigrate the authority of the Board, not only for this time but perhaps for a long time to come? That does seem to me to be the most astonishing way for any Government to treat any board with which they are concerned in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Mellish: I think the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that time was the important factor. Surely the point is that this statement issued by Lord Ammon could have had, and if I know my London docker, would have had the effect of spreading the dispute. The Government stepped in, and because of the time factor, in making the position

clear they issued that statement before they had time to see Lord Ammon.

Mr. Thorneycroft: How long does it take for a car to go to Brixton and to come back with Lord Amnion? A Government which gets into the position where it has in a matter of minutes to make up its mind on issuing a statement about a dock strike which has been going on all this time, is not a Government to be trusted. There are always Ministerial cars available; Brixton is not very far; and people are always available in situations of this kind, and can always be brought into town.
The only people, I regret to say, who have come out of this with their colours flying appear to be the unofficial strikers, who suddenly come along and say, "These ships are now 'white' instead of 'black'." I want to say this about the dockers. I do not think that much useful purpose is served by finding many excuses for the dockers in this matter. We all have respect for the dockers; we all know they do a fine job; but there is no doubt—and it had better be said—that on this occasion they behaved very badly indeed. It is no good glossing over it. That had better be stated openly and bluntly.
What has to happen for the future is that an education programme must be carried out. The trade unions have got to try to persuade the dockers what the meaning of solidarity really is, and how badly it can be misapplied upon occasions. The dockers have got to be shown that incidents of this kind, where a dispute in a foreign port is called in aid so that a ship here is labelled "black" and everybody comes out on strike, just will not work—not if the trade union movement is to go on holding the reputation it did in the past. Looking at the history of these disputes and at what has happened, we see that the faults are not all on one side, by any manner of means. But it is not very easy to try to distinguish between the "Jolly George" and the "Beaverbrae"—certainly not in the minds of the dockers. What is needed in the immediate future is some very clear and plain speaking by, amongst others, hon. Members who are very well qualified to speak in this matter, and I very much hope they will do so.
I now want to say a word about the troops. The troops behaved magnificently, as they always do in incidents of this kind. But might we have an answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend: Why was the unloading of meat cut down from 7,000 tons a day to 1,000 tons a day? Was it done so that the meat should not flow through Smithfield and possibly bring about another strike there, or what was the reason? Why was it that, at a moment when we were desperately short of food, and when the whole object was to get the food out quickly, a halt was called in the unloading of grain? I think we ought to be told those things in the House of Commons, and I think the country ought to know why things of that kind are going on.
Then there is the National Dock Labour Board. It is vital that the reputation and prestige of the National Dock Labour Board should be built up as rapidly as possible. After all, this goes very much farther than some quarrel between Lord Ammon and the Prime Minister. It is much more important than that. This Board is the responsible employing authority of these dockers, and if its members are to be held in disrepute, if their reputation is to be pulled down, we shall have nothing but one industrial dispute after another in this industry. Boards of this kind must have full authority to act, and when they do act they must be backed up by the responsible Minister. We cannot have a Ministry and a board fighting each other on a matter of this kind.
Finally, there is the Government. Well, I do not propose to say much more about the Government, but I do say just this. I think that the history of this dock strike in these last few weeks has shown a quite deplorable muddle. Nobody has known who is in charge of what, whose the decision ought to be, who is doing this or who is doing that. In such circumstances there is an inevitable invitation to industrial unrest. It has often been said that if the Conservative Party were returned to power they would find themselves in a head-on collision with organised labour. Let us have rather less talk of that kind. I believe it to be the duty of all parties

in the House of Commons to do their best to see that the authority of Parliament is maintained, and that we go on governing from this House of Commons and not from some body outside.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Awbery: Anyone unacquainted with the history of the Opposition would be convinced by the arguments we have had this afternoon that they had never been involved in an industrial dispute, or that if they had been they had come out of it with flying colours, and with satisfaction to the country and to the men concerned. That is quite wrong, and I wish to say something about the methods adopted by the Tory Party in the past in conducting industrial disputes, and what they would have done in these circumstances had they been in power.
Last week I asked the Minister of Labour to exercise his patience and perseverance in an endeavour to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the dock dispute. After hearing the whole of the facts today from the Home Secretary, I congratulate the Minister of Labour on exercising his patience and perseverance, and on not being persuaded to take precipitate action which, in all probability, would have brought about a stoppage over the whole country. According to the statement of Lord Ammon on 22nd July, the Dock Labour Scheme was in jeopardy. What would that have meant? It would have meant bringing into the dispute every port in the country which was operating under a dock labour scheme, so that instead of 15,000 men there would have been 120,000 men on strike. My impression is that some of the Tory Party as well as the Communist Party wanted that, in order that they could make political capital out of what the dockers were doing. I therefore congratulate the Minister of Labour for his patience and perseverance.
I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who followed the same line as that taken by his right hon. Friend on a football field in Wolverhampton last Saturday. It was a general attack upon the so-called ineptitude, the inefficiency, the muddle and confusion of the Labour Party, the same attack which was made by the Leader of the Opposition


at Wolverhampton last Saturday. How did the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) deal with strikes in the past? We in the industrial areas have very vivid recollections of the Tonypandy strike and the men being shot down. No, they would like to have the men shot down in the London Docks, and no doubt if they had been on this side of the House they would have done it. But we are a party that deals with industrial problems in a new way. We cannot forget the methods adopted in the Sydney Street raid, or the general strike, or the Arcos raid which brought about the trouble between Russia and ourselves.

Mr. Osborne: Deal with the dock strike.

Mr. Awbery: I am trying to bring forward the facts of the past in order to show that if the Conservative Party adopted these principles for the settlement of industrial disputes, then we have every reason to believe that if they were in office and there was trouble in the London or in any other docks, they would adopt the same methods they used in the past. That is our conviction. I do not want to justify the dock dispute.
The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities suggested that the Dock Labour Board had power to revoke the dock labour scheme. He did not say that they should have done so, but the inference behind his statement was that if that had been done the strike would have been settled. He then asked what is to be done to penalise those who exploited the dockers. I know the character of the dockers, and I know how easy it is to get them to take action. One of my first experiences as a lad was seeing a Chilean training ship come into port and the dockers going on board to discharge the ship. When they got on board they saw two lads in irons because they had committed some offence. The dockers never asked what the offence was. All they could see was that an injustice was being done to these two lads. They simply stopped unloading the ship. That is characteristic of the dockers.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: How did they know an injustice was being done if they never asked what was the offence?

Mr. Awbery: The dockers saw the two lads in irons on the ship, and the impression was that these lads were suffering an injustice. There was no question of what they had done. Because of that, they decided to take action, which is what the dockers did a few weeks ago when these people came from Canada to exploit their generous hearts.
This dispute started in my home town last December, when we had two crews standing by the ships for seven weeks. The trouble shifted from there to Liverpool and from Liverpool to London. The dockers have not committed a crime or done anything illegal. They have not incited anyone to disturb the peace. It is purely a constitutional business. I know what the dockers have suffered in the past, but what they are suffering now is nothing compared with what they endured under the Tory régime before decasualisation was introduced. The dockers know where their friends stand, on the political as well as on the industrial side.
I appeal to the dockers from this the greatest forum in the world—and I have spoken to dockers in the holds of the ships, in their branch rooms and at their call stands; I have appealed to them in the middle of the day and in the middle of the night—to let reason and common sense play a paramount part. I say that this Labour Government, which has been in power for four years, deserves something better from the 120,000 dockers for whom we have done so much which the Tory Party refused to do before we came into office. This is one of the finest agreements in the world so far as the dockers are concerned, and I want them to hold on to it. That is why I plead with them at this moment.
The Home Secretary mentioned the time lost in this dispute. I have taken the trouble to find out what has been lost in the past. I estimate that we have lost during the strike in London 450,000 man days, which is approximately 30 days' strike for 15,000 men. But in 1922 we lost 3,300,000 days in industrial disputes, and in the same year 81 million days as a result of unemployment. Therefore, what we have lost recently is comparatively small compared with what happened in 1922.
The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) last week


criticised the trade union movement. I regret that throughout the whole of this dispute a deplorable lack of understanding has been shown regarding the internal workings of the trade union movement. Members do not seem to understand either the policy of the trade union movement or its functions. We were told that the men at the top had no full understanding of the men at the bottom. Our trade union movement is a democratic organisation. It is not a question of the men at the top dictating to the men at the bottom. The men at the bottom are represented at all levels. It is not a dictatorship but the men deciding for themselves.
It was suggested that big unions were the trouble. The Transport and General Workers' Union had a comparatively small number of men involved in this dispute—about 3,000 to 4,000. The numbers from other smaller unions were 8,000 or 10,000. Members opposite have asked what action the Government would take. One hon. Member said last week, "We do not want to see these emergency powers put into effect," yet, in spite of that, he wanted to know what action the Government would take. He said that the position was going from bad to worse, and that if the Government wanted greater powers and asked for them the House would grant them. I am convinced that precipitate action would have led to an extension of the dispute.

Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Member has been referring to something I said. The Minister of Labour said that if he had certain further powers he could stop the strike in a day, whereupon I suggested that he should ask for them and we would give them to him so that he could stop the strike.

Mr. Awbery: That confirms my argument. Members opposite wanted the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport to exercise all the powers given to them by this Parliament and, at the same time, asked them not to exercise those powers. I do not say that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said that, but it was said by a Member opposite. The Minister of Labour showed restraint and patience and refused to exercise the powers, with the result that the men are now back at work. I hope the position in the docks will be far better than it has been in recent weeks.
The trade union movement and its machinery was established 50 or 60 years ago to deal with circumstances and conditions which existed at that time. I feel that it has outgrown these circumstances and conditions, and that it is necessary for the movement to re-design its organisation to provide for the rapid changes that have taken place during the past few years. There is need for the men in the trade union movement to exercise self-discipline; that is one of the things which must be learned. Discipline shown by men themselves is more powerful than when it is imposed from outside. I appeal to the dockers and other members of the trade unions to exercise this self-discipline.

Mr. Crossman: Will my hon. Friend say a word about his attitude to the trade union officials on the Dock Labour Board who, apparently, supported Lord Ammon's proposal?

Mr. Awbery: That matter will be dealt with in the right place.

Mr. Osborne: This is the right place.

Mr. Awbery: It seems that Members opposite want to hold a post-morten into the London dock strike and determine beforehand what the result will be. The Dock Labour Board will deal with the matter, not Parliament. The board are the employing body for the whole of dock labour. They have powers which Parliament has given to them. Whether Lord Ammon exercised those powers with discretion, or exceeded them, will be settled later, elsewhere; it cannot be settled here.
The workers want increasing control in industry and with this control they will be prepared to take increasing responsibility. It is not only the workers, however, who have to show responsibility; employers must bear their share of responsibility, too, and treat men as human beings rather than cogs in a machine. Some of us on this side felt last week that the London dockers were striking at their friends. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the dockers know where their political friends are. Sometimes they see the shadow and jump for it, rather than the substance. When they have a real or imaginary grievance they saddle and


bridle it and gallop away at great speed. The dockers have done a great job in the past and will do a great job in the future, but I want to see self-discipline and self-control exercised by the men in the industry.

6.7 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I do not want to pursue the type of argument to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery), or to attempt to apportion blame or suggest where it rests. No doubt that argument will be continued by those who will follow me in the Debate. What I am much more concerned about is whether, having regard to the unhappy experiences with which we have been faced during recent weeks, there are not lessons which can be drawn and which will be to the benefit of all of us if we can profit by them.
As an employer of labour—and I believe that most of the employees who work with me are members of the Transport and General Workers' Union and Amalgamated Engineering Union—I attach, as, I am sure, every sensible employer does, the greatest importance to the trade union machinery which exists for the orderly settlement of disputes and the conditions in which men should serve managements in the country's industrial concerns. But what is of vital consequence to the nation, to the trade unions and to employers is that when agreements have been freely negotiated and have been entered into on both sides, employers can absolutely rely on those agreements being faithfully implemented. The fact that the agreements entered into in recent weeks have not been honoured is gravely disturbing to employers in all parts of the country.
I think I am voicing the opinions of many of my colleagues in industry when I say that we are anxious about two things: First, that the trouble which occurs so frequently is created by a few extremists, Communists or otherwise, and by the constant ignoring by trade unionists of their leader's advice. That is what troubles us today. The second is that it would appear from such information as we can gather that when meetings are called in the various trade unions they are attended by a small handful of members of those unions. In other words,

perhaps 15 or 20 per cent. of the trade union strength turn up at these meetings, and the rest do not seem to bother about what goes on, with the result that the majority are too frequently led by decisions reached by minorities.
In recent weeks, members of the T.U.C. have been advising the trade unions to take steps to remove from office men who are known to have Communist beliefs. So far, very little action appears to have been taken. I earnestly appeal to trade union leaders to face the trouble which is being created for them, and to take the one action which seems likely to be effective—to take the advice of the T.U.C. leaders and remove from the possibility of further mischief those known men whose sole object is to foster discontent and create trouble.
I also wonder whether the trade unions always receive support and guidance from the Government when troubles arise, and, what is equally important when the necessity requires, prompt action which would strengthen the hands of the trade union leaders. I very much doubt whether this Government have always acted as promptly and as wisely as they might, and they are responsible for prompt and wise action. That is a duty which must fall upon any Government no matter from what party it is drawn, and I think a special responsibility, if I may dare to say so, falls upon the Labour Government in times like these.
I and others like me, as I have said, are very much concerned with the amount of unrest which exists in so many industries of this country at the present time. Not only are Ministers gravely concerned, but I believe that leaders in the T.U.C. are as anxious about it, and I am quite sure that many representative employers are equally concerned. What we want in the grave crisis which confronts us is peace in our time, if I may use that old phrase. We do not want a kind of disturbance like that of the London dockers going on, which is such a disaster to the nation, to employees and to managements. Those of us who have had materials lying in ships in London docks in these last few weeks know full well the consequences of that, because we have not been able to send our products to dollar and other countries. It is in the national interest that we should get together if we can.
I have a definite proposal which I should like to put to the Government. If we are to operate at high level in these troubles I should like to see a representative body set up. I do not mind an informal body, but one consisting of representatives of the Government, the trade unions, and the employers, who would sit down and see what could be hammered out between the three of them to avoid and avert such troubles as we have experienced in recent weeks, and such as we are threatened with in the weeks and months to come. I throw that suggestion out to the Government and I hope they will seriously think about it and if possible act upon it.

Mr. Harry Wallace: If this committee were appointed would it be able to direct employers who had caused a dispute?

Sir A. Gridley: I do not think there has been any lockout by employers for many years. On the other hand, the employers have observed the agreements, but recently we have seen those agreements broken on the trade union side.

Mr. Wallace: I said where they were causing a dispute, not a lockout.

Sir A. Gridley: This is a matter which I think should be discussed by the triumvirate body.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: When the Home Secretary was speaking he might have done a service if he had taken up some of the points put by the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). The right hon. Gentleman promised to develop one point but failed to do so. As an early part of his contribution, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities said there were likely to be further disputes. He added that he would develop that later, but he did not do so. It may be that he overlooked it in his notes. As a matter of fact, the Chairman of the Port of London Authority told the House that he expected future disputes. Apparently he has been informed of details which have not been given to this Committee, nor has he conveyed them to the Minister of Labour or to the Home Secretary. If we went right to the point of who is responsible,

we might ask how is it that at this stage, the dockers are now working full out?
The Chairman of the Port of London Authority is a Member of this House and already in a position to warn this Committee when he thinks there will be a further dispute. This Committee, therefore, is entitled to know what it is all about, because the right hon. Gentleman also said that he would like to see action taken against the leaders of the dispute. When he was challenged by an hon. Member on this side of the House he made it quite clear that he expects discrimination. Another hon. Member on this side described that word as "victimisation." It is true that the Home Secretary did not take up that point, some of my hon. Friends and I would have liked to see the Home Secretary challenging him and not allowing himself to be challenged throughout the whole of his speech by hon. Members on the other side. It is not merely the Government who are playing a part. Other forces are playing a part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are rattled.
The Home Secretary also said something about Lord Ammon which was rather startling. He said Lord Amnion had proposed the immediate dismissal of 50,000 workers unless they returned by a certain date. Of course, the Members of the Government are responsible; it is not only a matter for the Dock Labour Board. I must take this point further. The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) interrupted the Home Secretary, who admitted that it was not Lord Ammon speaking for himself, but it was Lord Ammon as chairman and with the authority of the Dock Labour Board. I take it that the Board has an equal number of representatives from both sides.
The Home Secretary said there was a unanimous decision supporting the proposals which Lord Ammon made and which the Government wisely rejected. We want to know if this is the frame of mind of the Dock Board. If we want to look for responsibility we have to look in that direction. Anyone can blame the dockers or the Canadian seamen. It is the easiest thing in the world to blame Communists. When we had a Debate nearly two weeks ago upon the Emergency


Powers Regulations the Home Secretary was followed by the Leader of the Liberal Party and by more than one hon. Member on this side, who said, "Don't blame the Communists for everything." We have to look in other directions.
We see the attitude of the Dock Board. Lord Ammon has got the stick for it. It is the Dock Board which purported to be handling the dock dispute in London and throughout the country. It the dockers have a grievance it is against the Dock Board. Hon. Members opposite do not understand the working men. When the dockers, or any other workers, come out on strike, it is not always simply because of a particular dispute. There may be an accumulation of all kinds of grievances and irritations. That is what is happening in the London Docks. It may be happening in other docks. I do not know anything about them. I know a little about the London Docks. I would remind the Committee of what "The Times" said on 22nd July. It is worth quoting. If I were to quote the "Daily Worker" there might be riots.

Mr. Gallacher: Or a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Piratin: Yes, or even a breach of Privilege. The Labour Correspondent of "The Times" said on 22nd July:
There is little doubt that if the Canadian ships had been allowed to remain idle until the dispute in Canada was settled, or if they had been dealt with by troops, the wide stoppages of work would have been avoided.… The alternative was to insist that the dockers should unload the ships, and to take strong measures to impress upon them that they must carry out their obligations.
He goes on:
The actual course of action taken by the Government was a compromise.
It was a compromise on those alternatives. He went on to say:
In London for some six weeks the dockers were allowed to refuse to handle the ships with impunity. It was tacitly accepted by everybody that they were 'black' and the men got it firmly implanted in their minds. Then it was insisted that the dockers should work the ships, and a stoppage inevitably followed.
That is how the Labour Correspondent saw the dispute as late as last Friday, on the day when the dockers decided to return to work. It was the employers who suddenly changed their minds. The

dockers did not change their minds. Who is to be blamed? Questions were asked in this House two weeks ago of the Attorney-General with regard to the responsibility of the port employers, and whether the Government would take action against them, as the Emergency Powers Regulations were brought in against the port dockers.
Let us look at the effect of the Emergency Powers Regulations. The Home Secretary thought that the Government had done very well, and that the dispute might have been much longer but for the steps which the Government had taken and which helped to reduce the length of the dispute. As a matter of fact, from the time the powers were introduced until last Friday, the number on strike increased from about 8,000 to about 15,000. Every day there was an increase of thousands, or at the least of a few hundreds. If that causes the Government gratification on the ground that they were succeeding in ending the dispute, it is very peculiar gratification. The Emergency Powers Regulations might have had effect last year when the Prime Minister made his broadcast the same night, but this year they had no effect whatever. The dockers went on coming out every day until they decided en masse to return. That fact should be remembered. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) asked: "What will be the outcome of the Emergency Powers Regulations? Will they help to end the dispute."
The dockers decided to go back and work those two ships not because of any effort the Government made but because they were informed that those two ships were no longer "black." At that meeting last Friday in Victoria Park they made the decision. I quote again from "The Times" report of that meeting, published on 23rd July. In a summary of what Mr. Harry Davis, president of the Canadian Seamen's Union said, the Labour Correspondent wrote:
He brought thankful and deep appreciation for the splendid support of the London dockers, the British dockers as a whole, the British housewives, and the British people. But the C.S.U. realised the great hardships that were being suffered by the London dockers and the serious consequences which the continuation of the dispute might have on the great national effort to recover from the war. The last thing they wanted was that England should suffer as a result of the treatment meted out to Canadian seamen. So


they would terminate their dispute in Great Britain and accept the promises that had been made that there would be no victimisation against Canadian seamen.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Piratin: No, I promised to take only five minutes and I have already been longer.

Mr. Daines: If the hon. Gentleman claims that Mr. Davis called off the dispute will he also claim that Mr. Davis called on the dispute?

Mr. Piratin: Mr. Davis is president of the Canadian Seamen's Union and was standing in that respect as a personification of that union as Lord Ammon personified the Dock Board. Mr. Davis is responsible to his executive for the Canadian seamen's strike and the Canadian seamen were in dispute.

Sir R. Glyn: May I—

Mr. Piratin: Please. I am answering this question. The Canadian seamen were in dispute. The London dockers, and formerly the Bristol and the Merseyside dockers, regarded this issue as one which they ought to support by treating the ships as "black."
So far as the mood of the men was concerned, I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who said that the men had gone back and that it was not merely the unofficial strike committee who were feeling elated. The report in "The Times" said on Saturday, 23rd July, about Friday's meeting:
It was not a meeting of defeated or repentant men which took the decision. They cheered every reference to international solidarity—and there were many—and fiercely insisted that they would strike again immediately"—
the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities should remember that one, if he is going to provoke any trouble—
if the conditions they made were not carried out,
particularly in regard to victimisation. The dockers stood firm on principles which hon. Gentlemen even from the other side of the Committee profess to acclaim. The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) was actually giving fatherly advice to the unions on what they should do. What a pass we have come

to when the trade unions have to listen to that great employer of industry using his position as a Member of Parliament to tell the trade unions how to conduct themselves. Too many trade unions are listening to that advice. Some of the responsibility for loss of trade falls not on the dockers but on those who provoke them into those "black" ships. It was not the Communist Party which provoked them. It was the port employers who provoked the men to work the "black" ships.
If the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities is able to tell the Committee this evening of some anticipated dispute in the docks of which he is aware, the sooner we know of it the better, because we shall not be able to blame the Communists, the Canadian seamen or "any other foreigner,"—the expression which the Home Secretary likes to use. There will be difficulties if they are provoked again by the port employers. If the Labour Members of this House knew what was really to the benefit of the working class movement, they would acclaim the solidarity of the workers and not condemn it.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I hope that, on the whole, the Committee will feel that the Opposition did well to ask that we should have this discussion. We felt that after this dispute had closed was the moment when the House should review the situation. I was a little surprised when the Home Secretary complained about questions to the Minister of Labour. The Minister knows that at least once or twice when he said that questions would be embarrassing, we deferred questions altogether. We have tried very much in this dispute not in that way to make things more difficult. I think that the Home Secretary, as a very old Parliamentarian will agree that on Wednesday last—I can praise my colleagues because I was not here—there must have been considerable temptation to anybody who understood the House of Commons to move the Adjournment in view of the incredibly confused situation with which Parliament was presented. My hon. Friends did not do so because they felt that in that situation it might make the dock dispute more difficult, since there were signs that the dockers were going back. That ought to be said in fairness to the Opposition.
I want to say a word or two to the Minister of Labour about one or two matters concerned with the earlier stages of the dispute. We have heard nothing about that until the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I propose briefly to review what has happened and then to try to draw a lesson as to what is to be done in the future. I do not think that anybody will dispute—I think the Government will agree—that they could see this trouble coming from quite a way off. The Home Secretary referred this afternoon to one of these clubs being first opened in London last December.
This is the point I would like the Minister of Labour to explain to us. Lord Ammon said that early in May he told the Ministry of Labour of the Canadian Government's warning, which explained all about the implications of the dispute. According to Lord Ammon—I do not know whether this is right or not; it is what he has written in the newspapers—the Ministry of Labour considered the document was not important and so they pigeon-holed it. Is that so, or is it not? The Committee ought to know.
The original stoppage at Avonmouth was as long ago as 16th May, and the whole gamut of strike was run through up to 14th June, when it collapsed following the broadcast of the right hon. Gentleman. The period between the resumption of work at Liverpool, which was the following day, and the London dockers coming out seems to have been the crucial period. For all this, Canadian and other information was available. Yet, as far as the public have knowledge, between the collapse of the Liverpool dispute and the breaking out of the London dispute, no action appears to have been taken either by the Government or by the unions concerned to follow up the end of the Liverpool dispute. Yet they must have known that the two Canadian ships were lying unworked in London and that there was, therefore, very great danger that what had happened at Avonmouth would happen again in London. I want to know whether that action synchronised with how the Government saw the position at the time, and if it made them see it, what did they do about it before the dispute broke out in London?
I must make one comment about the position of the Canadian Seamen's

Union. It is a very remarkable thing—the Communist hon. Members will agree—that the Canadian Seamen's Union appealed for the support of local labour wherever their ships were in port, and yet their appeal met with very little success except in this country. Can it be that there was less information about this story and this dispute in this country than there was in other places, and how did that come about? At any rate, the strike collapsed in Canada itself in a very few days. It is even more remarkable that as long ago as last April, the International Transport Workers' Federation, to which most transport unions belong, decided that there was no occasion for the unions abroad to take any action and described the dispute as an entirely inter-union conflict. That was endorsed by our own Transport and General Workers' Union, and yet, despite that, the Canadian Seamen's Union had no difficulty, or little difficulty, in persuading the British dockers to refuse to handle the ships.
When it is said that we are being critical of the unions in that respect, that is not really our position. The Committee and the country must take note of a situation where the unions definitely make one statement, with which I personally agreed, and following on that statement, which was as clear and definite as English language can be, exactly the opposite action is taken by a large number of the dockers. However we look at that, it is not attacking the trade unions to say that that is a situation about which everybody must do some hard thinking. Nobody can deny this.

Mr. Awbery: The Liberal Party is split in two. The same thing happens in unions and other organisations. Splits and breakaways take place even in political parties.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to discuss the position of the Liberal Party or any other political party. What we are discussing is an organisation which is of the first importance in this country. I should have thought that everybody would have accepted the lesson in all this and would have said that there is a problem to be met if we are not to have a repetition of this sort of thing over and over again.
Lord Ammon tells us that he warned the Government on 13th June that the


stoppage was likely to spread to London. I want to know whether that is true? It is certainly true that, as far back as last January, Mr. Deakin warned the country that the Communists would attempt to create confusion in the transport industry. He actually gave the month of August as the critical date. In the light of this, I should have thought that the Government would have done certain things. I should have thought they would have taken extra pains to make sure that the dockers understood exactly the real facts of the Canadian dispute and taken immense pains to assist the unions. I see the Home Secretary apparently shaking his head. I should have thought that they would have tried to bring the facts home to the men. I do not say that the Government should have gone down and distributed leaflets, but I should have thought that they would have been concerned to see that the information was made available.

Mr. Ede: They did it.

Mr. Eden: That is what I would like to hear because, according to Mr. Ammon, they did not do it. We want the evidence of what they did. According to Mr. Ammon—[An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Ammon."]—I am sorry, I should have said Lord Ammon, but he was a colleague of mine here for many years under that name—the Canadians gave that information and it was not used. If not, why was it treated so cavalierly?
The other action I should have thought the Government would have taken was to keep in the closest touch and to work in the closest co-operation with the Dock Labour Board. But after the dispute had been going on for some time, the Government suddenly announced that they would ask for emergency powers, and immediately Parliament granted them those powers. I have been listening carefully to the Home Secretary this afternoon, but I am still by no means clear what powers the Emergency Committee have used which would not in any case have been available to the Government without the granting of these emergency powers. So far as the use of troops is concerned, there was no need for emergency powers at all because troops were used at Avonmouth and elsewhere without such powers. So far as the order of

the unloading of ships was concerned, I cannot believe that emergency powers were needed for that either. Certainly we were told they were not by my right hon. Friend, so I would still like to be told what these emergency powers have done for us which could not have been done in any other way.
When we get to the final days the position becomes even more confused and chaotic, if that is possible. One could have thought that once the Emergency Committee was set up, the Government would have kept in the closest contact both with the Emergency Committee and with the Dock Labour Board. There might perhaps have been a Cabinet committee, whose special task it would have been to watch the dispute and co-ordinate the efforts of both those authorities. Maybe we had one. I am not asking, for Cabinet committees are never revealed to the House. If, however, there was such a committee it appears to have failed signally in its task. On the contrary, the Dock Labour Board appears to have issued a statement, read out to us this afternoon in various forms, amended at various times. However, the point is that the Board issued that statement clearly under the impression that in issuing that statement—whether we approve of it or not—it was well within their powers.
The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was very severe with the Dock Labour Board. If their action was as precipitate as he implied it was, that is most disturbing. After all, it is a Government-appointed board. It is no use the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) saying that this is just the sort of thing the Tories would want to do. That is not a Tory board, and it has been presided over until recently by a Member of the Government. It consists of four distinguished trade union representatives from different parts of the country, one from the North-East Coast, one from the Clyde and two from London, two being representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Mr. Deakin described them, if I remember aright, as representatives of the unions, as indeed they are. So this is a formidable body and one to be respected on the face of it. Yet the Home Secretary treated it pretty roughly this afternoon.

Sir Richard Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? The Government disapprove of the action of the Board. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he individually, or on behalf of the Opposition, approved of the action which Lord Ammon took, and whether that is the action which he would have supported if he had been handling this affair, because we have a right to know.

Mr. Eden: That is a perfectly good point but not the one with which I am dealing—

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer it in a moment?

Mr. Eden: I shall make my own speech, The point I am dealing with is this: Here is a body, as authoritative as the Government could set up, under one of their own colleagues who is their Chief Whip in the House of Lords, and with the strongest possible trade union representation. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying that this is the sort of thing the Tories would do. If this thing is functioning as badly as the Home Secretary says it is, it is a serious thing for the nation.
We can go from that to the next point, which I hope will answer what is worrying the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). What about the powers of this Dock Labour Board? The Home Secretary said this afternoon that it was absolutely clear that the Emergency Committee had all the powers. I must say, listening to his own account of the statement of the Dock Labour Board that it seemed clear enough to me that they thought what they were saying was within their powers.

Mr. Ede: I think the right hon. Gentleman was out when I interrupted the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) to read a document that was handed to me after I sat down, in which Sir Alexander Maxwell said that on the second day of the appointment of the Emergency Committee he had a consultation with the Dock Labour Board, and pointed out to them that they were under the Emergency Committee. There is no doubt as to what their position was.

Mr. Eden: I can understand that may have been the view of Sir Alexander Maxwell, but I want to put this point to the Home Secretary. It was his speech

I quoted, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite clear to everybody that the Dock Labour Board must be under the Emergency Committee from the emergency powers themselves. I should have said that exactly the opposite was clear—if anything at all was clear—from the emergency powers themselves. I cannot find a single passage in that document, which I have here, that places the Board under the Emergency Committee. The first big sub-heading, "Control of Traffic at Ports" concerns the Ministry of Transport, which does not control this Board and, presumably, where one would find instructions to the Board is in a passage which says "Employment of Workers in Ports." There is absolutely nothing in that which shows that the Dock Labour Board is to be placed under the Emergency Committee. What it does show is that the Emergency Committee would handle the military labour parallel with the other labour.
That I accept, but I would like the Minister of Labour to tell us where it is so crystal clear in this document that the Emergency Committee have control of the Dock Labour Board, because in my reading of the document there is no evidence at all of that. Even if, in arguing to and fro, there is a little more balance of assumption one way or the other, surely it would have been wise to make a matter of that kind clear beyond the possibility of doubt and not leave it to the Chairman of the Emergency Committee to argue it with the Dock Labour Board.

Mr. Ede: He did not argue; he told them.

Mr. Eden: He told this body, which is a statutory authority, that they were now under him. I think it conceivable, if that was said to me and I was a member of a statutory authority, that I should want to argue about it and know on what basis powers were there.

Mr. Ede: For a week that was acecpted without demur. It was not until Lord Ammon returned that any question was raised.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is putting a great deal on Lord Ammon. All we know about it is that the other members of the Board have said that they agreed with Lord Ammon.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated dissent.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head but I thought I had seen a public statement that the rest of the Board had agreed. Is not that so? Perhaps the Minister of Labour will tell us, because it is important that we should know. After all, we can only read what is said in the papers; we are not in the secret relations of the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and the Government Front Bench here. We ask to be told what those facts are, and if the whole of the Dock Labour Board are in agreement with Lord Ammon, there is a situation of real seriousness for the Government to handle in that respect. I ask when was the power of this Emergency Committee laid down and by whom? Presumably by the Government. It is a pity they did not make it clear in their own emergency powers.
Another question I should like the Government to answer is whether they consulted the Emergency Committee before they issued this statement contradicting the statement of the Dock Labour Board? Was the Minister of Transport a party to all those discussions? After all, he was directly concerned and, technically, the docks are under him. Further, if the Government found that this statement upset them so much, could they not have got hold of the Dock Labour Board and tried, with them, to work out some other statement, some corrective which they could have put out to stop a headlong collision between a Government-appointed Board and the Government, because nobody can deny that the effect of this, whatever else it may be, is to damage very much the authority of the Dock Labour Board. It could not be otherwise.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Member cannot blame the Communists for that.

Mr. Eden: No, I do not. I made it quite clear last week that I thought the Communists would make the maximum amount of mischief but that they should not be given credit for more mischief than they could make. Whatever may be felt about this business, there does seem, to us at any rate, from the evidence so far given, to have been a very lamentable failure to co-ordinate the activities of these various bodies from a very much earlier stage.
I turn now to something which is more important than controversy about the past, and that is, what of the future? I do not believe that this action in the docks was due in the main to Communist sabotage or agitation. I think we must look a little deeper than that. The Committee knows how many unofficial stoppages of one sort or another we have had in the last two years. It is not criticising the trade unions to say that. I hope that the Government in their sphere, the unions in theirs, the employers so far as they are concerned, and the Board in their sphere, will now make an effort to see that there is no repetition of the events of these last few weeks. "The Times" made what I thought was a fair comment when it said:
More fundamental … is the loss of confidence of the worker in his official leaders.
The Minister of Labour the other day said an interesting thing, which I hope he will be able to follow up. On 20th July he said:
… We are collecting a very interesting little dossier of the steps leading up to the dispute and what has been done since, and at the appropriate time it will be released."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 1387.]
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the appropriate time is the earliest possible moment—tomorow, if he can do it. He has the dossier; let us see it. If there are some charges or evidence of Communist activities, let us know what they are. It is much better that we should know, for two reasons. First, it will help the Government to establish the case they have made against the Communist Party in respect of which the Home Secretary was challenged a little while ago; and secondly, it will also, surely, warn the dockers of the kind of activities they have to meet in the future.

Mr. Gallacher: There is no case.

Mr. Eden: I presume that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to his "little dossier," he had something in it already and that it was not completely empty.

Mr. Gallacher: There is nothing in it.

Mr. Eden: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight when we may expect its publication. I repeat, the sooner the better.
There is one other comment which I must make. The hon. Member for Central Bristol asked why we ever criticised the trade union leaders. All through this dispute we have had at stated intervals very optimistic statements—I am not quoting them, but I have them here—as to how soon the whole business would collapse. Unfortunately, they never turned out to be true. Events of that sort must make everybody feel a little uncertain about how the future is going to develop, and that is putting the whole matter very mildly indeed.
There is another matter to which I can only refer indirectly. Whatever our views of this dispute, we must all be particularly disgusted—indeed, I think, outraged—by the account of the beating up in the dock area of the two loyal members of the crew of the "Beaverbrae." I cannot say more about that because the matter is sub judice, but there is a very great deal more I should like very much to say.
I hope that the Minister of Labour will tell us what steps he is going to take to deal with the future, and what are to be his relations now with the Dock Labour Board. It is hard to see that they can be very close or cordial after the exchanges which have just taken place, but they must clearly be rebuilt as rapidly as possible. Everybody must try to play a part in making sure that the whole trade of the country is not once again held up by some sudden event which has not even taken place in this country at all, and which the Government, trade unions and the public alike deplore, but which for many anxious weeks nobody was able to remedy.
At times during these past weeks I have been reminded of some words of Burke:
Invention is exhausted; reason is fatigued; experience has given judgment; but obstinacy is not yet conquered.
There seem to be three things that must now be done. The realities of the situation must be grasped by the Government. They have to get to grips with the problem and not think that just because the men have gone back to work their difficulties are in any sense over. Secondly, the Dock Labour Board, I suggest, should review what has happened and decide upon what recommendations, if any, they want to make in the light of what has happened. Thirdly,

the trade unions also must consider what effective steps they can take to recover control of their members. All these things have to be done, and they have to be done rapidly if the nation is not to be at the mercy of another such event as we have suffered in recent weeks.
I submit that the whole position is deeply serious. Nobody can be content, not even the Government, with the way in which it has been handled so far. I hope that the Minister of Labour this evening will be able to give us some indication that the stern realities have at last been understood. For ourselves, I have deliberately said not a word tonight about other problems which we know the Minister is handling and has before him. But there is an interconnection, to some extent at least, which cannot be denied, and I hope that the Government will be fortunate in their handling of this matter, because in it there is something far more than the Government's reputation—Governments can rise and fall—there is the future prosperity of our State.

Sir R. Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put to him during his speech about his own attitude towards Lord Ammon's statement, and whether the Opposition were in favour of it and supported it, or were against it?

Mr. Eden: I have really nothing further to add. We have had several different versions of Lord Ammon's statement. I am quite willing to accept—

Sir R. Acland: We know what his statement was.

Mr. Eden: The Home Secretary this afternoon did not know what it was. I am not prepared to comment like this on a document the whole of which I have not seen and three or four different versions of which are careering about. Anybody who did so would be most unwise.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I appreciate the general spirit in which the Debate has been conducted. I should like to deal with one or two preliminary points and then, if the Committee would permit me, I think I can best answer the


questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) if I give a connected story of events as they have occurred so that we may see how they fit into the pattern in which we now find ourselves.
I appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) and his references to the need to get co-operation between the trade unions, the employers and the Government. That is done now through the National Joint Advisory Council, whose scope is not at present extended into this field, but who, I am sure, would be quite willing to help us in our investigations in trying to get to the bottom of these differences. I thought I was going to be the first to speak today, but events turned out otherwise, and I think I ought first to express the thanks of the community, and those of the Government and the House also, to the troops for the way in which they undertook the duties imposed upon them, not only for their actual service but for the cheerfulness with which they undertook it [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, Hear."]
I shall ask the Committee to bear with me while I go through the connected history of this matter so that hon. Members may see exactly where we come to the position in which there is this argument, as was set out in the "News of the World" last Sunday. I preface my remarks by saying that I am not going on record as saying that all this or all that is what Lord Ammon said. Lord Ammon is the Chairman of his board and is carrying out, no doubt, the instructions of his board, and we must not ask him to carry all the blame for what his board have decided. On the other hand, I hope that, as the board will continue to exist and their duties will have to be carried on, nothing we say will exacerbate the feeling between the Government and the board.
Let us look for a moment at the story of events. The "Seaboard Ranger" was the first of these ships. It came into Liverpool on 27th March. The discharge of her cargo commenced the following day, but on 1st April it was suspended because of shortage of labour. Thereafter the employers did not requisition labour because of friction with dockers. The Ministry of Labour was not consulted by the employers or the Liverpool

Dock Labour Board as to whether they should or should not carry on with the requisitions.
Then we come to Avonmouth and to the "Gulf Side," which arrived on 28th March. The unloading of the cargo was completed on 2nd April and the crew were discharged by the employers because they went on strike. On the same day, 2nd April, the "Ivor Rita" arrived in London with a crew under British articles. Because of the reluctance of the dockers to accept allocation, requisitions were left in suspense. That was the action taken by the London Dock Labour Board, but without consultation with the Ministry of Labour. On 4th April the "Beaverbrae" arrived in London. Again there was no requisition and again my Department were not consulted. On 9th April came the "Argomont" and again there were no requisitions and the Ministry were not consulted. Similarly, on 29th April, the "Seaboard Trader" arrived in Southampton, dockers indicated they would not accept allocation and requisitions were left in suspense. The Ministry were not consulted.
Although my Ministry were not consulted regarding the non-requisitioning of labour, the position at the various ports was known and the seriousness of the situation which might well develop was fully recognised by the Board and was in their minds. I do not think it should be taken as an accusation against the Board that they hesitated to requisition later in the hope—which I am told "springs eternal"—that they would get the matter adjusted without having to impose penalties and without the risk of the trouble spreading further. I do not think there can be any accusation against the Board for not taking action which would have precipitated further trouble.
On 1st May we had trouble at Avonmouth. I cannot go into details, but it is an important point. As the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, we are collecting a dossier and one or two things have come out this afternoon and other things are being checked up. I could not publish it tomorrow, but I hope later to publish a statement to show that the dock workers of London have been "led up the garden."
On 5th May the "Montreal City" arrived in Newport and the dockers refused allocation. On 6th May, members


of the original C.S.U. crew of the "Gulf Side" addressed a meeting of Newport dockers and, as a result, a strike took place stopping the whole docks. At this meeting the following telegram was read out:
London Stevedores and Waterfront Workers solid in support of official strike Canadian Seamen's Union. We call upon the Waterfront Workers throughout the United Kingdom to follow our example. Stoppage is our responsibility to wholeheartedly support striking Canadian Seamen in their defence of Trade Union principles.
The telegram bore the name Mr. R. Barrett. Mr. Barrett is the Secretary of the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers and not of the "London Stevedores and Waterfront Workers." Mr. Barrett denies that he ever sent such a telegram, or knew anything at all about it. It was a forgery which was telephoned from the barber's shop in Pier Road used as the strike office for the Canadian strikers. So the first thing we get in this mix up was that the men at this port believed they had been called upon by a responsible secretary, an official of a union, who knew nothing about it, to come out on strike, and that official is given the odium of taking those steps. I accept his assurance that he knew nothing about it.

Mr. Edgar Granville: When did the right hon. Gentleman's Department know of the signing of that telegram?

Mr. Isaacs: Not until that telegram came to my notice on about the second day. I was suspicious that Mr. Barrett would do such a foolish thing as that and we made investigations and got the information, but by then it was too late to do anything about it.

Sir R. Glyn: Has Mr. Barrett ever denied it?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Mr. Barrett has denied it and I accept his assurance.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Were the strikers informed of the fake telegram?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, we published this information. Obviously the Government have not published leaflets, but we got the information out. I use it as an illustration of the deceit practised to deceive these people.
On 9th May the Newport dockers passed a resolution that the Canadian

strike was no concern of theirs and work was resumed. The "Montreal City" proceeded to Barry and Swansea where her cargo was handled without difficulty. But, on 14th May, when she arrived in Avonmouth, dockers refused allocation. On the previous day, 13th May, 156 stevedores had refused allocation to "Beaverbrae" in London and on 14th May 26 dockers refused allocation. On 16th May dockers allocated to the "Montreal City" refused to commence work and the Port of Avonmouth stopped completely in sympathy, but work was resumed on 17th May, except on the "Montreal City."
On 16th May, Lord Ammon and Mr. Parkin, of the National Dock Labour Board, called at the Ministry of Labour to obtain advice as to the action the Board should take to deal with the situation which had arisen over Canadian ships in various ports. Up to then they had not proposed requisition because they did not want to cause the dispute to spread among other workers. They said that the Board had not pressed the matter to an issue as they wished to avoid any action that might lead to a more widespread stoppage, and I think that was a proper action. They could not continue to do so without some assurance that the Government concurred in this course of action. It was the first occasion on which guidance had been sought and they were given the assurance on that day and again on the following day.
On 17th May the employers at Avonmouth decided to make no further requisitions for labour until the "Montreal City" was manned and worked. On the following day work stopped completely at Avonmouth and on 23rd May dockers in Bristol and Portishead stopped in sympathy. In view of their duty to the country to take all necessary steps to safeguard perishable foodstuffs, the Government decided to employ Service labour for the purpose, and unloading commenced on 27th May. Thereafter all vessels in the port were unloaded by the troops. On 17th May the "Seaboard Queen" arrived in Leith. The dockers worked the morning shift on 18th May, but at midday the Canadian Seamen's Union representatives from London arrived and the dockers refused to work in the afternoon. This


ship left Leith on 3rd June with a cargo aboard and was discharged in Bremen.
I hope I am not wearying the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—hon. Members will want to know the truth about the strike as well as the truth about the conduct of those trying to stop it. On 26th May the "Dromore," a British ship, arrived in Liverpool from Avonmouth and, on 27th May, the dockers refused to work it. On the same day the crew of "Seaboard Ranger" were paid off and left the ship. On 28th May dockers in the Liverpool docks stopped work in sympathy. From this date until 13th June there was a widespread stoppage in the Bristol ports and in Liverpool docks. At Liverpool the maximum number on strike at any time was 10,000 but 5,700 remained at work. I mention that so that the Committee may realise that all the people have not been fooled all the time. Strenuous efforts were made at Liverpool to get other dockers to stop work, but those efforts failed.
On 7th June, in the middle of these strikes, the situation was fully discussed by officials of my Department with the London Port employers at their request. The port employers came to the Ministry and discussed the matter. They were concerned at the failure—to that extent they were critical of the Board—to requisition labour for the "Beaverbrae" and "Argomont" in London. Full information was given to them and they expressed themselves as convinced that no action should be taken in London at that time. Even the employers then realised that precipitate action might make the strike worse than it turned out to be.
On 13th June there was a full resumption of work in Liverpool, including the "Dromore," but excluding the "Seaboard Ranger," on which work was resumed on the following day, and subsequently work was resumed at Avonmouth, Bristol and Portishead on 15th June. On this date the National Dock Labour Board were informed by letter—quoted in the "News of the World"—by the Ministry of Labour that the Ministry did not wish to influence the Board in their judgment as to the steps they should take in connection with the

Canadian ships "Beaverbrae" and "Argomont" in London. They had come and asked whether we supported their action in refraining from requisitioning, and to that extent we had influenced their judgment, but we did not wish to influence their judgment further. It was pointed out that the Board and the employers must take the full responsibility for any decision in the matter and for any action that might be taken.
Therefore, on 18th June, the discharge of the "Seaboard Trader" at Southampton was commenced. On 20th June the Board offered work on the "Argomont" to 200 surplus stevedores, but this was refused. On 21st June, the stevedores' executive were seen at the Ministry of Labour and asked what action they were taking to secure normal working. The "News of the World" article said something about inertia in high quarters. If the contacts I have had with the dock labour trouble during the last four weeks is inertia, Heaven help me if I am ever busy. We called in the Stevedores' Union. I have reported from time to time to the House, and Questions have been put to me which I have answered. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact that I asked him one one occasion not to press me that day because I had something moving. Sometimes things move the right way, and sometimes the wrong way, and the hon. Gentleman cannot be blamed for asking a question which he did not ask.
We got them together and said, "It is your responsibility." On 22nd June, as a result of our interview with the stevedores, the executive of that union advised resumption on the "Beaverbrae" and "Argomont." Up to then they had not been very forthcoming in trying to get their members back. I am satisfied that from that point they were forthcoming and did try, but events had got too far beyond them, the leaders were a few paces behind the front rank men and could not catch up again. Two gangs accepted allocation to the "Beaverbrae," but on getting there refused to commence work. That left us in the air again. There was a complete refusal to work the "Argomont." The stevedores' executive were then asked again what action they proposed to take to secure a full return to work, and they announced that they would reiterate their instructions for full normal working.
On 24th June work was fully resumed in the Port of London. On the previous night, the Canadian Seamen's Union, having secured contact with the High Commissioner for Canada, reached an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, owners of the "Beaverbrae" by which the Canadian Seamen's Union crews were employed. On Saturday, 25th June, that is the next day, an allegation began to be circulated that the Canadian owners had "double-crossed"—that was the word which was used—the seamen. This was the very next morning. On Monday, 27th June, as a result of that allegation the strike in London was resumed first by stoppage in the Surrey Docks in the morning, followed later in the afternoon by partial stoppage in the Royal Docks.
I should here like to refer to a circular letter issued to workers in other industries over the signature of Mr. Jack Pope of the Canadian Seamen's Union at about this time. I wish to quote later something from the Canadian Seamen's Union office itself to give some idea of the kind of stories which were started. These circular letters were sent to shop stewards and trades councils throughout the country and showed how efforts were made to inflame the minds of the men. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by reading the whole of the document, but it is available for the perusal of anyone who wishes to see it. Here is part of it:
The strike has seen a terrific campaign of terror and violence by the shipowners and the Canadian Government. The latest example of double-dealing by the shipowners is shown by the gross betrayal of an agreement reached with the owners for a settlement of the strike in the United Kingdom.
I shall show in a moment that there is not the slightest evidence that either the Canadian High Commissioner's office or the shipowners have gone back on the agreement which they made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) may be interested in this part of the letter:
The Port of London Authorities, always on the side of the shipping companies, threatened a lock out of all port workers.
I know that there is a Port of London Authority, I know that there are other authorities in the Port of London, but I never heard that they were threatening to lock out all port workers. These are the kind of stories which have been put about.
The circular letter goes on to refer to the agreement made. It says that on the night they negotiated at the Canadian office, 19th June, they received a 'phone call from Mr. Sigvalderson
during which he assured us that our proposals were accepted greedily by the shipowners.
It goes on to state the charges of treachery made against the shipowners.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that document first came into his hands, and what steps he took to refute it?

Mr. Isaacs: It first came into my hands about four or five days ago; it was very late in coming into my hands. In a moment I shall tell what steps I took to refute it. It will be linked up with the fact that I had to make a statement in the House, I think last Friday, relating to a document issued by the Canadian High Commissioner.
At that point, in order to safeguard the food of the people we brought troops in to unload the ships. Emergency powers were introduced, and on the following day, as there seemed to be some doubt as to whether the dock scheme still operated in London, the National Dock Labour Board, after discussion with my Department, announced that the scheme was still in operation and that the dock workers should continue to make themselves available for work at the normal times and places in accordance with the scheme.
A question has been raised about the Emergency Committee. The job of the Emergency Committee was to run the port. This they did most successfully. They could, of course, have issued directions to the various dock authorities. Instead of doing that they followed the much more effective method of consulting the various authorities and working through them. So far as the National Dock Labour Board is concerned, for example, the Emergency Committee were in frequent consultation with them, seeing either the chairman or officials of the Board.
To revert to my narrative, I had reached the point at which our continued efforts were made to try to get some pressure behind the unions' move to get their members back. It will be appreciated


that to some extent the strike was officially supported by the Stevedores' Union, but the Transport Workers' Union had all along been endeavouring to get their members back. The Stevedores' Union had not done so until I had the conference to which I have referred.
We reach, on 13th July, the point at which some delicate negotiations were undertaken. On that date Mr. Barrett, General Secretary of the Stevedores, and Mr. Lindley, General Secretary-designate of the Lightermen, came to the Ministry of Labour, at their own request, and requested the services of the Ministry to arrange a meeting between the High Commissioner for Canada or his representative and representatives of their respective executives, to hear at first hand an explanation of the recent agreement between the Canadian shipowners and the Canadian seamen. We arranged that. We asked the Canadian High Commissioner, who readily consented, and put off other engagements and met these men. At that meeting a representative of the Ministry of Labour was present merely to introduce the deputation so as to assure the High Commissioner that they were the people they purported to be—responsible executive officers of those unions.
Let me take up one or two points. On this occasion I will use the document accompanying my statement printed in HANSARD of 15th July, in column 1933. I am only giving one or two dates. I wish to show how impossible it was for the Canadian shipowners to have repudiated the agreement which had been made, even if they had any intention of doing so, in the time set out. On Thursday, 23rd June, the London newspapers carried a news item stating that the High Commissioner was calling the strike leaders in to discuss the dispute. That was absolutely untrue. Later in the day he responded to a request to meet them. The two people who went there were called Arland and Doucette. In the issue of HANSARD to which I have referred the points on which understanding were reached are set out. The strike leaders said they were anxious to know the same evening whether their terms were acceptable, in view of the critical meeting of the London dockers called for the next morning.
It was agreed that they should telephone the High Commissioner at 9.30 the same night. Captain MacMurray, General Manager of Canadian Pacific Steamships was contacted and agreed to accept the conditions on behalf of the owners of both the "Beaverbrae" and the "Argomont." As announced in the papers the next day, Doucette telephoned to Canada House and was informed that the owners of the "Beaverbrae" and the "Argomont" would accept the four-point solution. He stated he was satisfied. At 11 p.m. Mr. Pope, the strike leader, telephoned to say that the Canadian seamen were satisfied and that they would all be back at work. On Friday morning a statement was issued by Captain Mac-Murray that the owners accepted it and subsequently there was a meeting on board the "Beaverbrae." It is entered in the log book of the "Beaverbrae" on the 29th June that the terms were accepted.
The purpose of making this detailed statement is to make it clear that when the men went back to work on 24th June they were going back to work whether the Canadian seamen had got their settlement or not. The Canadian seamen were clever enough to step in and get a statement of this kind and then there is no doubt that they at once deliberately spread the statement about double-crossing and got the strike moving, again.
So far as the Canadian High Commissioner is concerned this is a document which has been printed, but I think it important to bring to the attention of the Committee a paragraph in the document which we did not print with the HANSARD statement, because it had nothing to do with the dispute. I ask the committee to notice the bit about double-crossing. On 24th June Mr. Pope, who spread the story that the agreement had been violated on that day was at the Canadian High Commissioner's office seeking to get those same terms extended to another ship. The High Commissioner informed me on 24th June that Pope telephoned and was informed that the crews could be taken back on the "Seaboard Trader" but not on the "Seaboard Ranger" but that as a condition the "Tridale" in Wellington, New Zealand, would have to be cleared. Pope said that this condition was not


satisfactory and he would have to consider strike action in Southampton and Liverpool—

Mr. Eden: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it is terribly difficult to follow what all this is.

Mr. Isaacs: I know it is.

Mr. Eden: Is this document the document to which I referred earlier which was given to the Minister of Labour by the Canadian Government?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes.

Mr. Eden: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he got it and what he did with it?

Mr. Mellish: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, is he aware that the information he is giving is of vital importance to dock workers whose future is a lot more important, if I may say so with respect, than the Tory Opposition.

Mr. Eden: Well, that is very interesting.

Mr. Isaacs: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman considers the statement involved; it is an involved statement because it is an involved position. I have been asked to give the Committee all the facts. This document came into my hands just a matter of an hour or so before I brought it to the House of Commons, realising the value of it. I shall not go into the details but various steps were taken and the real end of this dispute occurred when the 300 corn porters decided to resume work on the following Monday and informed all and sundry that they were going back on the "Beaverbrae" to unload. Their resolution was:
We recommend an orderly and unanimous return to work on Monday because we honestly believe this is an international political attempt to break the economic structure of this country.
It took a long time to get the facts over, but at the finish they were got over by those members of the Transport Workers and other unions who continuously attended meetings of their members and tried to put the facts over to them. Then came the meeting at Victoria Park. There was a lot of ballyhoo and a meeting of the Port Joint Committee on 23rd

July arranged for a full resumption of normal working in the port on Monday morning. The resumption was arranged through the trade unions on the basis of the existing national and local agreements.
The charge has been made, and a question has been put to me about an important statement by the Canadian Government on the seamen's position which had been pigeonholed at the Ministry of Labour under the impression that it was of no great importance. This is not true. The document in question was a highly involved statement concerning the legal position regarding arbitration in Canada and the causes of the Canadian dispute. It had nothing to do with the dispute in this country and its publication could not possibly have made any contribution whatever to the settlement of the dispute here if its terms had been made known. We had continuously and incessantly taken the line that we could not negotiate a return to work on the understanding that we should settle the strike in Canada.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask a question?

Mr. Isaacs: Let me finish my statement and then if there is time the hon. Member can ask a question. I do not wish to be charged with having failed to answer any question put to me. The reason why the Government issued a statement on 19th July was that the previous week the National Dock Labour Board passed a resolution that, after consultation with the Emergency Committee the Board should inform the London board that the National Board considers
that all the men who are in breach of the scheme should be given notice that unless they make themselves available for full resumption of work on a date to be fixed they are summarily dismissed under Clause 16 (2) (d) of the Scheme.
The Emergency Committee discussed this with the Chairman of the Board on 19th July. The Emergency Committee took the view that the strikers would not be induced to return to work by a threat of dismissal at that stage, and that the probable effect would be to bring the whole port out on strike. After discussion, the Emergency Committee suggested that the board should issue a statement about not using the Dock Labour Scheme


to force the workers to work disputed ships, and leaving out anything in the nature of a threat, The Chairman of the Board agreed to put this suggestion to the Board.
On the same afternoon as the Emergency Committee had the consultation with them on the proposed statement, the Board issued a statement without any further consultation, and they never informed the Minister or the Emergency Committee of its contents until after it had been placed in the hands of the Press. I have already explained to the House that in view of the fact that the Dock Labour Board had no authority to make any announcement about the future of the scheme the Government decided to issue a statement to the effect that there was no intention of taking any steps to bring the scheme to an end.
I wish to say one other thing. The right hon. Member for the Scottish University (Sir J. Anderson) asked whether the Minister would sit down with the Dock Labour Board and work out some arrangement to prevent these events in the future. I would say that the Minister of Labour will co-operate with all authorities.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move that—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Colonel Ropner, in view of the malicious accusations—[Interrup-

tion]—wait a moment—where are the relevant—

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Ropner): Mr. Eden.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That Class V., Vote 5, Ministry of Labour and National Service be reduced by £1,000."

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. May I, with great respect point out that my hon. Friend—I do not know what he wanted to say—was raising a point of Order.

The Temporary Chairman: I heard what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, and I rule that it is not a point of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the allegations? What about some evidence? Where is the evidence?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Surely, Colonel Ropner, it is a little difficult to gather whether a point of Order is a legitimate one or not on half a sentence, and I submit to you—

The Temporary Chairman: I heard enough to make up my mind.

Question put, "That Class V, Vote 5, Ministry of Labour and National Service be reduced by £1,000."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 245.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[7.31 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Cuthbert, W. N.
Granville, E. (Eye)


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Gridley, Sir A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, R. V.


Astor, Hon. M.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Baldwin, A. E.
De la Bère, R.
Harden, J. R. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, Sir P.
Donner, P. W.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.


Birch, Nigel
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Haughton, S. G. (Antrim)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Drayson, G. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Boothby, R.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bower, N.
Duthie, W. S.
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Eccles, D. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hogs, Hon. Q.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Hope, Lord J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Howard, Hon. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S.(Southport)


Carson, E.
Fox, Sir G.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Challen, C.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Hurd, A.


Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gage, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Cole, T. L.
Gammans, L. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Keeling, E. H.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Kendall, W. D.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Langford-Holt, J.




Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Mullan, Lt. C- H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Linstead, H. N.
Nicholson, G.
Studholme, H. G.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Low, A. R. W.
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Odey, G. W.
Teeling, William


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Osborne, C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


McCallum, Maj. D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Pickthorn, K.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Pitman, I. J.
Touche, G. C.


McFarlane, C. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Turton, R. H.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Walker-Smith, D.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Raikes, H. V.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Renton, D.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Marples, A. E.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Robinson, Roland
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Maude, J. C.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
York, C.


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Mellor, Sir J.
Scott, Lord W.



Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.
Mr. Drewe and Commander Agnew.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Spearman, A. C. M.





NOES


Acland, Sir R.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hardman, D. R.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Daggar, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Albu, A. H.
Daines, P.
Harrison, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Haworth, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Herbison, Miss M.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Holman, P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Attewell, H. C.
Deer, G.
Horabin, T. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Diamond, J.
Houghton, Douglas


Austin, H. Lewis
Dobbie, W.
Hoy, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Ayles, W. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dye, S.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Battley, J. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Benson, G.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Janner, B.


Berry, H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Binns, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Blackburn, A. R.
Ewart, R.
Keenan, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Farthing, W. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Kinley, J.


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kirby, B. V.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Follick, M.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Forman, J. C.
Lavers, S.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Levy, B. W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Burden, T. W.
Gibbins, S.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burke, W. A.
Gilzean, A.
Lipson, D. L.


Callaghan, James
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Carmichael, James
Gooch, E. G.
Logan, D. G.


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Longden, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Grey, C. F.
McAdam, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McAllister, G.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.


Collins, V. J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McLeavy, F.


Cook, T. F.
Guy, W. H.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cove, W. G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)







Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Timmons, J.


Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Rhodes, H.
Titterington, M. F.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Richards, R.
Tolley, L.


Mellish, R. J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Messer, F.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Mikardo, Ian
Rogers, G. H. R.
Walkden, E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Royle, C.
Walker, G. H.


Monslow, W.
Scollan, T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Moody, A. S.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Morley, R.
Segal, Dr. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Sharp, Granville
Watkins, T. E.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P.
Watson, W. M.


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Skinnard, F. W.
West, D. G.


O'Brien, T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Orbach, M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Steele, T.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Pannell, T. C.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Parkin, B. T.
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Pearson, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Willis, E.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wise, Major F. J.


Popplewell, E.
Symonds, A. L.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wyatt, W.


Price, M. Philips
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Randall, H. E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)



Ranger, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rankin, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.


Reeves, J.
Thurtle, Ernest



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £65,419,372 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Fuel and Power with particular reference to Coal, Gas and Electricity for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950, namely:

£


Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power
4,683,000


Class IX, Vote 4, Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)
500,000


Class VI, Vote 18, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
3,164,717


Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Supply
51,292,000


Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works
5,779,655


Total
£65,419,372"


—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — FUEL AND POWER

7.41 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: This is the last opportunity before the Recess of asking the Minister some important questions with regard to our coal position, and indeed the whole of our position regarding fuel and power. It may seem

a little surprising, considering the weather which we are having at present, but it is the fact that, when we come back from the Recess, the winter season will have started so far as the coal year is concerned. I shall endeavour to raise such questions as I wish to raise in no narrow partisan spirit, but with the idea that the public interest should be paramount and that the coal that is required for our national life should be available. I think the country deserves a statement which is a little fuller than that which the Minister gave in answer to a Question the other day about our coal requirements, coal stocks and coal supplies next winter, what plans he has, what hopes he has, and, just as important, what fears he has.
It is generally agreed that the most vital factor in our economic life is coal. I want to deal with our present position regarding output, demands and stocks. I have been supplied with some most disquieting figures on this vital matter, and I ask the Minister whether he can either confirm or correct them when he replies. The important considerations regarding our coal supplies are our output, our consumption, both internal and export, and our stocks position, and these three are the basis of the calculations which the


Minister and his Department must make when they are making their plans each year.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I desire to call your attention, Colonel Ropner, to the fact that a stranger is reading a newspaper.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Ropner): Notice will be taken of the fact.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order, cannot an hon. Member raise a point of Order on a matter affecting the dignity of the House without having an insulting interruption from the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway?

The Temporary Chairman: It should not be necessary, but I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman made a very insulting observation, and I ask that he withdraw it.

Mr. McCorquodale: I do not wish to butt in on this little argument, although I feel that perhaps the hon. Member opposite was trying to call up his courage after the lamentable exhibition in the Division Lobbies a few minutes ago. As I was saying, I do not wish to put these questions in any partisan manner, because they are serious questions which I desire to ask the Minister about the coal supplies of the country.

Mr. Shurmer: On a point of Order. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has just passed a remark that I have no right in this country at all.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not hear these remarks, and I think we had better get on with the Debate.

Mr. McCorquodale: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman opposite is that, if we do not have proper supplies of coal next winter, nobody will wish to stay in this country.
I wish now to return to the subject at issue, and I will compare the period up to 16th July this year with the period from the beginning of the year up to 16th July last year. The figures with which I have been supplied show that, while the output from our mines increased by

something just under three million tons, or an increase of 2.8 per cent., yet the consumption increased faster than that. Consumption increased by four million tons, or 3.7 per cent., and thus our actual position in regard to the ratio of consumption to production worsened by one million tons.
I am informed that our stock position on 16th July was considerably worse than on the same date a year ago, and the figures supplied to me show that the distributed coal stocks and opencast stocks together gave us a total on 16th July of approximately 13,900,000 tons, against 16,250,000 tons, or a reduction of nearly 15 per cent. in our stock position. If we endeavour to make a small profit and loss statement of the excess output and our existing stocks over consumption we find that, against an excess of 13 million tons a year ago, there is only an excess of 10 million tons of coal this year, and, with the advent of the low output period in the holiday season and the dangerous drop in stocks, I foresee very grave difficulties in the months to come.
Last year, when our exports were only 16 million tons, we had to draw on our stocks, I believe, to the extent of three million tons. This year, our actual requirements under the European recovery scheme are higher than they were last year. I do not know at what figure our internal consumption is running at present, and for industrial needs, I presume it cannot be less—I hope it is not less—than last year, because if so that would mean some reduction in our industrial output. I hope it is more, and, in view of our serious economic position and of our necessity to export, we shall have to keep our factories supplied with coal. If we have to export more and we have to keep our factories supplied with coal and our output is not running as high as we hoped, while our consumption is increased, we shall have to make up the loss in the only remaining way, which is at the expense of the domestic consumer of household coal.
I want to know whether or not this is actually the case, because it is a very serious matter four or five years after the war. We are shortly going to ask the people of the country, as the result of what we heard from the Chancellor


of the Exchequer the other day, to undertake more austerities this winter than before, and if on top of all that we are going to ask the domestic household consumer to manage with less coal than she had last year, the position will be indeed lamentable.
I ask the Minister what is the possibility with regard to the stocking-up of gas and electricity undertakings. I well remember, when I was associated to a small degree with the Ministry of Mines, as it was in the old days, the raid on our stocks that gas and electricity were capable of making, especially at periods of low temperature. We must remember that we have had two remarkably mild winters—especially last winter. We cannot expect the same again this winter, because it is probable that, according to the law of averages, we shall have a cold winter. I want to see, above all things, that if the winter is a cold one the hardship does not fall upon the ordinary little householder once again, and I am sure that is the wish of everybody in this Committee.
This is no party point. I believe that if the position were properly and adequately put to the mining community, that the people who are chiefly likely to suffer are their friends in all the humble homes of Britain, we should get a tremendous response from them. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider very seriously whether it is not time that he spoke up loudly and clearly about our stocks position and about his fears and hopes for the winter. That is why I am asking him these questions tonight.
Why is the position so bad and gloomy? The Minister keeps talking about output per manshift, and, indeed, the output per manshift has been going up. But what is important with regard to the number of men employed is the output per man year. What is important to our overall economic position is the total output of coal from our mines and not the individual output per manshift.

Mr. David Griffiths: Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept the fact that when we were passing the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, miners on this side indicated that there would be no difference in tonnage for at least five years, whereas, in fact, there

has been a marked improvement in the last two years.

Mr. McCorquodale: As I said at the beginning, I do not wish to get into a partisan debate, and I have purposely said nothing critical of any part of the mining community, and I do not propose to do so. I went so far as to comment favourably upon the increase in the output per manshift, but I am saying that, from the point of view of our economy, the important thing is how much coal we have got and how much we shall have for export and for our domestic consumption this winter.
We must face the fact that our total output lags behind, compared with many European countries, in the matter of our recovery to pre-war standards. I have the figures here for the different countries, but I do not wish to go into them. According to the latest figures, issued in April, we are only up to 89 per cent. of our pre-war tonnage of coal produced in this country, while other countries in Europe are well over 100 per cent., and our manpower is again declining. We read that during the last six months a net decrease in our total manpower of something under 5,000 has been experienced.
Is this a temporary decline or an indication that things are going to get worse in this respect? Is the Minister going to make any change in his appeal for extra manpower? Are the public relations departments of his Ministry and the Coal Board, whose main job it is to put forward the proper recruiting posters and statements, working well? Is the Minister making any change in the matter of control of labour in the mines? Questions have been asked in this House as to whether the ring fence is going to be removed or not. The replies have stated that the matter is under consideration. Can we have some information about that?
There is one thing which alarms me even more, although I hope the alarm will not be justified. What is the industrial position in the coalfields at the moment? Yesterday we read in the papers that the Colliery Winders' Federation have given 21 days' notice of a stoppage. They are asking for an increase in wages and they claim that they are eight shillings less well off


compared with the average mineworker than before the war. I do not know whether that is true or not. Is the position here likely to cause a stoppage? We all know that colliery winders, though few in number, can have a very great effect on the industry. Can the National Union of Mineworkers, who say that they can provide suitable winders if the Colliery Winders' Federation go on strike, really provide the necessary men? Would the winders whom they supplied be sufficiently experienced to pass the safety test? Are the Government prepared if this trouble should come about? I hope the Minister was following what was said in an earlier Debate this afternoon, and is determined not to copy the precedents set there.
Will he say what is the position with regard to the dispute over the miners' free coal in Lancashire? I believe that that matter was put into cold storage after a disastrous stoppage. Is anything being done to get rid of that sort of thing before it breaks out again? Again, we read in the newspapers today that there is the possibility of trouble on the railways. Of course, that is not primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power, but nothing has a more disastrous effect upon our coal production than trouble on the railways. Hon. Members will well remember that directly there is a stoppage on the railways, the colliery trucks become full, and winding has to stop at many of the pits.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us reassuring news about all these matters, and will be able to say that he has the situation well in hand, that he is considering the position and making arrangements to overcome the difficulties. I may be unduly pessimistic in my reading of the situation—I hope I am—and I trust that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am. I have only the published facts to go on—I have not the information which the Minister has at his disposal—and therefore I think that if this Debate gives the Minister an opportunity to make a statement on the matter, it will have served a useful purpose.
Will he tell us honestly how he views the winter prospect? If I may say so, he was admirably courageous and frank the other day about the overall economic position of our country when the Chancellor

was a little less so. I hope he will be equally frank with the country now. If he is, I have every confidence that all ranks in the mining community will respond to his appeal. That is all I wish to say on this important subject. The object of this Debate is to get the matter ventilated and to give the Minister an opportunity to make a statement.
Now I wish to say a few words on quite another matter, and one which has been exercising the minds of many people in my constituency, and no doubt the minds of a number of people in the constituencies of other hon. Members—the electricity surcharges which were added during the winter. I believe that in intellectual circles these winter surcharges are known as Clow differentials, after the Clow Committee recommendations. I believe I am right in saying they were introduced in an effort to reduce the peak load during the winter months, and the idea was that by putting on a surcharge of 35d. per unit during the three winter months the housewife and the householder would save electricity during those three months.
When this was announced the Committee will remember that it was proposed that the surcharge made during the winter would be recovered by a rebate for the nine summer months of 1d. It was emphasised by the Minister that this was not a revenue-raising scheme, but that it was a method of inducing saving during the winter months by means of encouragement and punishment. I do not believe that this was put over in a proper psychological manner. The figure 35d. per unit does not mean very much to the harassed housewife. What does matter is the size of the bill when it comes in. That inducement did not arise until the damage was done, and it was not until the bills began to come in during the spring and summer that the reality of the situation was brought home to the user of electricity, especially in the small all-electric houses which the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Minister of Health has been encouraging.
I have had in my constituency, and no doubt other hon. Members have had, the most alarming statements of increases in quarterly charges. I have some here if the Committee would like to listen to them. In one case the charge went up from £5 to £12, and in another


case to £17; in another case it went up from £4 to £9, and so on. The rebate did not make up for the extra surcharge by anything like the amount hoped for, so far as one can estimate. The whole thing got muddled up because there was a general increase in charges on those who had specially low rates up to a certain level—I think it was three-quarters of a penny a unit. A lot of householders were caught both ways at the same time—both by the winter surcharge and by this extra increase. I hope the Committee will excuse me if I remind them how often in the past the nationalisation of this great industry was praised to the community on the score that charges would go down. I think "Public ownership will lower charges" was the phrase used in the official publication, "Let us Face the Future."
At Torquay the other day Lord Citrine indicated that, in spite of the increased charges, up to three-quarters of a penny and so on, during 1948, the surplus of revenue this year will be very small if any. It is a fair deduction, I think, for us to say that without this winter surcharge there would probably be no surplus at all, but very likely a deficit. What I want to know is, what the Minister is going to do about it. If it happens—and every estimate made so far shows that it is likely to happen—that the surcharge will not be discounted by the reduction of 1d. per unit during the summer months, is the Minister going to do something special about it? Is he going to give a further rebate? Is he going to make a repayment in cash to those householders who have paid the extra amount; or, like so many other hopes and pledges, will they go into the wastepaper basket with the others? I think this is an important matter.
The Minister has announced that he is not going on with this Clow differential. I am very glad to hear it; it has been heavily criticised by some of his own consultative councils which he has set up and to which, his Parliamentary Secretary told us, he attaches great importance. I only hope that, having dropped this disastrous Clow differential he will not return to it in some other way until next Winter, but will give us a free run. I would further ask him whether he should not consider returning in some other way

this surplus or excess which has been taken off the domestic user of electricity if he finds that the 1d. per unit during the Summer months is not sufficient to repay the users of electricity. There must be some Members present who live in all-electric houses with, possibly, immersion heaters, and they will know what the effect of this Winter surcharge has been on them. Fortunately, we in this Committee are sufficiently substantially placed to be able to bear these charges, but there are very many living in small council houses who cannot bear any further large increase through stunts of this description.
There is one other small matter which I wish to raise. I do not want to keep the Committee very long because we have only a short time for this little Debate. I wish to refer to the public relations of the National Coal Board. I have already said that the public relations departments of the Ministry and of the National Coal Board have a very great task to fulfil. It is very largely up to them to keep the flow of fresh miners coming into the mines. Their job is most certainly not to spend public money on party politics or propaganda of any sort. I am sure the Committee will agree with that statement that it is not the duty of any public relations office of any nationalised concern or public corporation of any sort to spend the public's money on partisan propaganda. It is most important that we should remember that in quite a short time there will be a change in the complexion of the Government—[Laughter]. Certainly there will be—and these corporations will have to work with the new Government.
I am not going to make a great deal of this point, but I should like to refer to a cheap novel which has been produced without any publisher's name on the title page—although the printer had his imprint, as all good printers do—called "Fingers in the Sky." It has been described by the Press as shrill propaganda for party purposes. Indeed, so far as my reading of it is concerned, it is rather shrill and rather indifferent propaganda on behalf of one side on the political scene. After questioning, it was found that the National Coal Board paid for the printing of 10,000 copies of this little book. They distributed free 4,000 copies of it to public libraries and other institutions, and I am told they have also been sent to some Socialist Members of


Parliament, but I have not been able to check that. I believe one or two have seen it. The other 6,000 copies have apparently been put into cold storage.
This is not the sort of thing which the National Coal Board should be at, and indeed it is quite obvious that they realise that a bloomer has been committed because the other 6,000 copies have not been distributed. Their excuse was a trifle naive, if one may believe what was said in an interview with the "Daily Graphic." [Laughter.] It is a very good paper. I have no doubt that the hon. Member who laughed will believe what the Board official said. He did not deny this afterwards. He said:
We did not put our name to it because we felt there were certain passages that made it better for it not to be issued as our own publication. We bore the cost of printing and paid an honorarium"—
that is a little royalty—
to the author. We did not acquire the complete copyright. Certain officials, on the ground of quality, opposed publication
We do not want to have a charge of spending public money for partisan purposes laid against the National Coal Board or any other nationalised concern. It is possible—and I will not mention names—that some of the trouble might be in one of the Board's officials. I will give his name to the Minister if he wishes, because this official wrote a book, "A Guide to Big Business"—a most entertaining book but extremely Leftwing. The chapter on the Press, for example, damns impartially the Conservative Press, the Liberal Press, the "Daily Herald" and all of them and the only paper it appears to like at all is the "Daily Worker." I will read the quotation:
There is one daily newspaper which claims to arrive at the breakfast table without 'a lord on the board.' It is the humble 'Daily Worker.' Humble because it is owned by humble people, humble because they are said to be mainly working class and, let us not hide the truth, many of them not so humble as members of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not now advancing the thesis that an officer of a public corporation ought to be inhibited from expressing in writing his views on a matter outside the work of the corporation?

Mr. McCorquodale: No, I have no objection to people expressing their views privately or publicly and, in fact, they should do so, but when one is on the industrial relations side of a public corporation—and the Civil Service have to do this all the time—I think it behoves one to be a little careful. I am not pillorying this gentleman upon the matter and I have not mentioned his name, but I think it behoves him and the N.C.B. to be a little careful. He is perfectly frank in his outlook and there is no reason why he should not be. I am merely making the point that I think it would have been better for him to have been a little careful in the publications he issues from the N.C.B., as he is one of the officials responsible for putting out this pamphlet "Fingers in the Sky," of which even the Board themselves are now ashamed.
That is a very minor point by comparison with the point I made at the beginning. What really worries me and worries many other people in this Committee and outside is this: What will be our coal position this winter, very probably the most important, the most vital winter of the whole of our economic position? If there were a breakdown in coal supplies this winter that would very likely be the last straw that breaks this poor old country's back.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) but I cannot give the figures he was seeking. We expect the Minister will be able effectively to reply to the questions he has put. I will say this, however: I believe the figure which was fixed by the Economic Survey for the output of deep-mined coal and opencast coal was unobtainable, but we always tried to obtain the maximum possible and the blame, for that, therefore, cannot rest with the mining community. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wants the position put to the mining community to see if there could not be a tremendous response.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the manpower question. It is undoubtedly true, and we have to face it, that the manpower problem is again arising in the mining industry. I detected it three months ago. Our non-recurrent recruitment


of Poles and non-recurrent recruitment of ex-miners coming back from the factories has ceased and young men are still not willing to go into the hard, unpalatable work of the miner in different areas. Unless we are to take a 12 gun to the community of this country and force them into the pit, this problem has to be faced.
We believe that this problem arises from the deep-seated resentment of the atrocities which the Opposition perpetrated upon the miners in the inter-war years. [Interruption.] The Opposition may think that is funny, but it is a fact and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who has never lived in a mining village, cannot understand this problem. For years we preached to the children that the pit was no place for a miner's son, in case they got the same treatment as we got in the inter-war years; and that will take some years to eradicate.
With the manpower we have, we are getting as high an output per person as we got before the war. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite, because when I negotiated piece prices with the colliery management everything I had to depend on was, what was the output per person employed upon that particular face and what would the miner get for the piece-work rate for that face. When it suits the Opposition, they can switch to output per man-year from output per person. I do not believe the picture is as black as the Opposition have tried to paint it. I believe we shall be able to meet the position this winter and I think the Report of the first three months from the National Coal Board, which has been issued today, shows the upward trend all the way and the success of nationalisation under the National Coal Board. That upward trend will continue as we rectify the neglect in the mechanisation of the pits, which mechanisation the Opposition so sadly neglected when the coalowners were in charge of the pits.
I want to speak for a moment or two about the book "Fingers in the Sky." I happen to have a copy and to have read it, and I cannot understand the squeamishness of the Opposition. I was in the pits when the coalowners put a penny per ton on production and gave

it to Alan Hand, the Conservative organiser in Durham County, to defeat the Labour candidate in the county council elections in the '20's. They employed a man called Philip Gee and paid him a handsome figure to write tract after tract attacking the miners and the nationalisation policy.
We used to get little Tory pamphlets in our pay packets telling us what horrible people these Socialists were. Yet there was no upset about that. But because the board, or someone in the board happens to make a little mistake in publishing this book, we find a mountain made out of a molehill. I should like the Government to send this book to every one of the Junior Imperial League, to every young Tory over 21 and up to the age of 30. [An HON. MEMBER: "After that it is no use."] I should like to see it published just to expose what the man who spent 20 years in the pits, from being a boy of 14, went through at the hands of the Opposition in the inter-war years.

Mr. McCorquodale: Does the hon. Gentleman not really mean that the Labour Party ought to publish the book and send it to all the Conservatives? We have no objection to that. It is ordinary party propaganda. What we object to is that the National Coal Board, which is not a party organisation, should be paying for it. If the Labour Party or the Conservative Party were issuing it and paying for it, it would be quite all right.

Mr. Blyton: I was drawing an analogy with what the Tories did with money that came out of the coal trade. Yet because this one mistake has been made there has to be a row. This book tells what happened in the general strike, and how certain men used to go to the workhouse because the Tories would not give them the means to live because they were on strike. This book tells how in 1931 the Tories got their fingers on the windpipe of the nation. That is true. They reduced the unemployed man to 2s. a week. Why should they be squeamish about their own history? The criticism of this book seems to me to be a mountain made out of a molehill. I would advise the Government that this is the finest pamphlet to tell the country


exactly what a life the miners had—men like me, not clever men from Eton College—

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Tell that to the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. Blyton: —but men who smoke pipes and work in the pits. It tells the country what the Tories did in the interwar years. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman not to be squeamish about this book. I can assure the Committee that if the country reads this book there will be no fear that after the next General Election the Tory Party will have even as many Members here as it has now.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I want to follow the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) about this interesting book, "Fingers in the Sky." We could see from the trend of his earlier remarks that this type of literature is his favourite, because the argument he put forward initially about the fact that recruitment is not what it ought to be in the mines was that it was due to Tory mismanagement in the 'twenties. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, cannot argue that the steel industry ought to be nationalised, when there is so much hard work going on in it, as they acknowledge there is, while at the same time they boast of the hard work going on in the mines because they have been nationalised. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot go on putting forward those contradictory arguments. They cannot try to eat their cakes and have them. It is really almost ludicrous that such arguments should be put forward. The fact remains, although I do not want to go into it now, that output per man year is not up to what it ought to be.

Mr. Blyton: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the miners are malingering because the output is not what he thinks it ought to be?

Mr. Fraser: I say that output per man year could be higher. The statistics produced by hon. Members opposite give the impression that the increased production of coal cannot be achieved. It can be. We have been through that debate previously.
The point I want to raise, however, is a very simple one which affects every

home in this country, and that is the question of the various activities of the British Electricity Authority. The first question I would ask the Minister is, When are the accounts of the British Electricity Authority to be published? The latest statement of Lord Citrine has caused a considerable amount of alarm, and it has caused alarm especially amongst those people who are paying for the British Electricity Authority—the consumers of electricity in this country. That is one thing I want to ask the Minister.
I also want to ask him what plans he is making for this refund under the Clow differential of payment. I want to know if the refund is to be made. Finally, I want to ask him this question. How does the Minister propose to implement those pledges which were made in 1945 in "Let us Face the Future" to lower electricity charges? Because the fact remains that at the moment charges are rising. I see some of my hon. Friends opposite from North Staffordshire. They know that electricity charges in North Staffordshire have gone up to an amazing extent. Let us take Newcastle-under-Lyme. There the electricity charges have been doubled. There are other areas throughout the country where the rate was below ¼d. per unit, but where now the rates have gone up to ¾d. per unit.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many of the local authorities were working practically on the rates, and had been for three or four years before nationalisation?

Mr. Fraser: That applied in certain areas, I quite agree; but in the country generally, electricity charges have gone up.

Mr. Shurmer: So has everything.

Mr. Fraser: So has everything. And so everything is "fine and dandy." That is what we on this side are always trying to disillusion hon. Members about. The point about the Clow charge is that it is now being removed. That is a very big problem. This surcharge during the winter months of ⅓d. has now been removed. This idea came, I think, originally from the well-organised State, Portugal, where this same surcharge takes place in the winter months on the heavier


consumers. That charge is about to be removed. The point on which I should like the Minister to give me information follows the speech of Lord Citrine. His exact words were:
The preliminary view seems to show that, largely owing to the fact that the increase of tariffs only came at the end of the 1948 period, we may look forward to a narrow margin of profit.
That is, of course, the tariffs relating to the Clow surcharge. Since those have now been removed, it is questionable whether the British Electricity Authority will be able to meet their own charges. How are they to deal with this problem in the coming winter? How will they deal, first of all, with finding the money, and secondly with the problem of possibly reducing the load factor over the whole area of Britain's electricity supply? The Minister must know, having helped to compose the White Paper on the economic policy of this country, that there has been a very serious drop below what should have been produced in the way of generating plant, and that that is not running according to schedule.
We must face the fact, unless the Minster can give us affirmation to the contrary, that there may, well be a very serious increase in the standard rate of electricity in this country. When the consultative committees he has set up have, in at least two instances, recommended to him that there should be a repayment of this surcharge to those people who suffer, we should very much like to know what action is to be taken to deal with the matter.
Let me take two or three instances of what this increase has meant to individual families. First, for a consumer in the Home Counties, in the quarter ending March, 1948, when 3,468 units were consumed, the total charge was £6 13s.; for the quarter ending March, 1949, when about 200 more units were consumed, to a total of 3,680, the total charge, with the surcharge added, came to 17 guineas. That means an increase of something like 300 per cent. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, this manoeuvre failed completely in its object of reducing the burden for the load factor in the country, for the very simple reason that people got their bills not at the beginning of the quarter but at the end, so that during that time they naturally

considered that the increase was not very great.
What emerges quite clearly is that the Minister said the object of this was to reduce the load factor and that his various consumer committees and councils of industrial technicians have now shown that there was no reduction in consumption, or such a small reduction as to be wholly incommensurate with the cost to the general public, so that B.E.A. were forced to put up their charges in order to balance their books. Unless that can be disproved tonight by the Minister there will be continued anxiety, as there is anxiety today, about the progress which is being made by the British Electricity Authority, for which he is responsible in this Committee.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: We have had a very imaginative speech from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) on the subject of electricity. I do not blame him, of course, for not appreciating the technical points, but it is most unfortunate that he should talk all the time about reducing the load factor when a good load factor is a high load factor. That is, of course, an important difference.

Mr. H. Fraser: Reducing the amount that should be consumed.

Mr. Palmer: The Clow proposals were not a conspiracy on the part of the British Electricity Authority. As my right hon. Friend knows, B.E.A. and the area boards were very much against the Clow proposals. I just point that out to assist the hon. Gentleman in being a little more accurate in the future.

Mr. Fraser: Who was in favour of them then?

Mr. Bracken: Who set up the committee?

Mr. Palmer: The Clow Committee was an expert committee set up by my right hon. Friend to go into the question of the best way of dealing with the very real problem of the electricity demand outrunning the capacity of the electrical system. The difficulty, which has not just arisen this year or last year, arose from the accepted sacrifices of the war years, and the surcharge recommendation was one of the practical recommendations of that expert committee, which had on


it as well representatives of consumers, housewives, and so on. My right hon. Friend accepted this recommendation and suggested to the area boards and to B.E.A. that they might consider its implementation, and although they were not very keen they did so. I do not think one can blame my right hon. Friend too much for this. It is a highly technical matter, and he was acting on the recommendation of an expert committee.

Mr. Bracken: This is a strange doctrine. The hon. Gentleman knows that the recommendations of this committee were accepted by the Minister, but the Minister cannot shelter behind them. The Treasury forced the Minister to overcharge the small people on the ground that electricity would be saved. No electricity was saved, but the unfortunate householder was looted.

Mr. Palmer: That is an excellent sample of the rather overheated imagination of the right hon. Gentleman. I ant sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to move one step away from this point: it was the responsibility of the Minister, and he accepted the report. It is a highly technical matter, and I cannot see that any great blame can be attached to the Ministry for accepting the report of this technical committee.

Mr. Bracken: It is a piece of sheer robbery.

Mr. Palmer: I want to say a word on this question of electricity charges. It is ridiculous to suggest that those of us who have advocated public ownership for electricity have ever said there would be an absolute fall in prices irrespective of the general level of prices. Such a statement would be ridiculous, and such statements were not made. What we did say, and I believe this will be borne out, was that our experiment of the B.E.A. and the area boards would be similar to the successful experiment of the Central Electricity Board—

Mr. Fraser: And the Dock Board.

Mr. Palmer: —and that we should by integration and bringing into effect the practical proposals of the McGowan Committee of 1935 on electricity distribution, be able to reduce costs.

Sir William Darling: Has electricity gone up in price in Wimbledon?

Mr. Palmer: We all know that there has been a general increase in the price of electricity. I want to give a quotation from the "Electrical Review," which is a paper that will be accepted on all sides. It is a commercial, technical and financial journal that has no connection with the party on this side or any side of the House. It is the leading paper of the electricity industry and claims to be the oldest—it was established in 1872. In the leading article on costs and prices on 14th May, 1948, which is within a few weeks of the vesting date, it states:
Those in the industry, and most thinking people outside it, know the necessity arises"—
that is the need to increase prices—
not from nationalisation but from the steep rise in costs during the past two or three years, which all the economy and efficiency of the undertakings could not counteract.
That is a statement of fact.

Mr. Fraser: Surely one of these increases is coal.

Mr. Palmer: Of course, it is. No one suggests that it is possible to improve the conditions and standard of life of the miners without affecting the price of coal. There has been an increase in world prices also I believe. Coal costs are up 170 per cent., since 1938, materials generally by 140 per cent., and electricity salaries and wages are up by 70 per cent. These conditions are common to most industries whether under public or private ownership. I suggest that it is blatant nonsense to say that in some peculiar way this is the result of nationalisation.
There is another factor which my hon. Friend below the Gangway mentioned just now—namely, that there were municipal undertakings actually losing considerable sums in the two or three years immediately before vesting date. It was because the Coalition Government and the present Government for the two or three years towards the end of the war, and immediately afterwards, dissuaded these undertakings from making price increases as part of the general attempt to stabilise the cost of living. When at last in the electricity supply industry reality had to be faced it happened to coincide with the date of the taking over by the


new authority, and to suggest that the increases are automatically the result of nationalisation is absurd. The truth is that electricity today is still one of the cheapest of all commodities and supplies compared with 1938 prices.
There is one matter which I have raised on the Adjournment on two occasions—the progress being made in the construction of new generating stations and the bringing into commission of new generating capacity. I have spent a great deal of time going into this matter, and I think I am right in saying that I am the only hon. Member who has raised it in any definite fashion. We were led to believe that improvements were taking place, that deliveries were being speeded up, and that some of the bottlenecks were being widened. However, I am not so sure that that improvement is being maintained and, if we have a severe winter, we may have once again load shedding on a wide scale, which can be a great inconvenience to the domestic consumer and could be, under some circumstances, perfectly disastrous as far as industry is concerned. So I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies, he will say a few words on the progress being made in the new generating station construction programme.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I want to put a question to the Minister which I hope he will answer. What is the ramification of the new charge appearing in the Coal Board accounts called a service charge? It is important that we should have an answer because the Coal Board's selling department are now saying to consumers, "You must pay a service charge of from 1s. to 5s. a ton for extra service. If you do not accept this service charge, we will put the coal into wagons at the colliery but we will not be responsible any further after that and, if there is a question of loss of weight in transit, we will not even go into it for you." That apparently is their argument in trying to increase the price of coal by 1s. to 5s. a ton.
I want to quote to the Minister a letter I have received from the sales side of the National Coal Board and, if he wishes, I can give him the letter afterwards. It says to a consumer of coal, who in the past was registered with the Coal Board, that if the consumer wishes to have his

next allocation he must pay a service charge of an extra 5s. a ton. It says that the Minister has authorised the extra service charge. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether that is so or not. As far as I can see, no extra service is taking place, the colliery is sending the wagons to the destination as it did before, yet an extra price of 5s. a ton is put upon the coal. That is the very quick point which I wish to put to the Minister. I am grateful for the opportunity of being able to make it, because it is so important that it requires an answer today.

8.45 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) is now back in the Committee, for I wanted to ask him whether he really thinks that the book "Fingers in the Sky" is a good and accurate account of a miner's life.

Mr. Blyton: It gives a very vivid description but is very much an understatement.

Colonel Clarke: All I can say is that the hon. Member sometimes exaggerates when he talks of the awful days between the wars and the times of Tory misrule, for if he will look at page 25 of this book he will see that the author says:
For me, just at that period, everything seemed marvellous. I was always well dressed, quite a beau, if you get me, and I always seemed to have plenty of money.
I do not say that the author was always in that position during the days of Tory misrule, but obviously between the wars there were sometimes bright spots.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Will the hon. and gallant Member quote the average wage of a miner in, say, 1935?

Colonel Clarke: That seems to me to be completely off the point, but I will say this. Before the war wages in the coal industry were not as high as in other industries. That has now been put right. All I am quoting is what the author of this book says. He seems to have been able to get enough to enjoy himself.

Mr. Taylor: In 1935 the average wage of a miner was £2 5s. 6d. a week.

Colonel Clarke: I wanted today to call attention principally to what is to my mind a very serious anomaly, which


is resulting in considerable injustice, owing to the faulty working of the machinery of the Gas Act, 1948, in relation to compensation to stockholders. Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee which considered this Measure will remember that in the relevant Section—Section 25—it was the intention of the Government that every holder of securities of concerns which were taken over should
be entitled to be compensated by the issue him by the Gas Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act, of British Gas Stock of such amount as in the opinion of the Treasury is at the vesting date of a value equal to the value of the said securities held by him, regard being had (in estimating the value of the stock so issued) to the market value of Government securities at or about the vesting date.
I should like to point out that on the vesting day it was not possible for more than a certain number of stockholders to be paid out. I believe that only the holders of some 177 classes of securities in 66 companies knew the exact value of their holdings, because they were the ones quoted on the Stock Exchange; and that the remainder had to be ascertained later, because it was arranged that companies without Stock Exchange valuations should be valued after the vesting day. That was a mistake.
Since that time the 66 companies have been increased in number to 186, but there are still a great many to be valued, because in all 630 gas companies have been nationalised. It may take something like a year to complete those valuations and the position is that there is still some £60 million of British Gas Stock to issue. I want to make it clear that I am not complaining of the actual values put on these stocks. I think they will be fair, but perhaps more credit is due for that to the stockholders' representative, than to anyone else.
Two definite hardships are accruing. The first, a minor one, is that I understand interest on the unvalued securities, although it accrues from the vesting date, will not be paid until the value is ascertained and compensation fixed. Sometimes small holders will be a year without any income from their investment. In the gas industry, as in all industries in which employees spend a large part of their lives, there are a great many small investments.
By far the greater loss, however, is accruing in a different way. The stock which is issued is
of such amount as in the opinion of the Treasury is at the vesting date of a value equal to the value of the said securities held by him …
regard being had to the market value of Government securities at or about the vesting date. But there is no provision for the eventuality of a fall in the value of British Gas Stock between the nominal value and the real value some time after vesting date. Directly British Gas Stock was issued, it rose that afternoon to a premium of about 1¼ but today in the evening papers it is quoted at its lowest level, 92⅜. That is possibly due to the steel Debate and the failure of the Government to accept the excellent suggestions made by another place. That is having a disastrous effect on the holders of these stocks.
I wish to quote a specific example in connection with the Brighton Gas Company and the holding of the trustees of the co-partners in that company. Copartners have had a pretty thin time anyhow, and this is adding insult to injury. Because of the delay in getting a value—Brighton is one of the damaged companies which could not be valued straight away—the actual figure was not announced until yesterday—about three months late—and in that time there has been a fall of 7 per cent. in the value of the stock. The position today is that, whereas if the co-partners had got their money on vesting day they would have got £189,000 of stock which could be turned into cash at £189,000 or even more because of the premium, as a result of the fall in value of British Gas Stock, they will now lose more than £13,000. Instead of making a small profit, they are losing £13,230. That affects a great number of small holders and co-partners. The same happens in regard to many private holders. Some large holders probably sold forward on estimates of what they expected to get, but small holders would not think of doing that and trustees would not be permitted to do it. This injury, of course, is entirely unintentional, but I would remind the Government that:
… Evil is wrought by want of thought, As well as want of heart.


Great hardship is being caused. I believe it was the Government's intention that the stockholders should receive gas stock equivalent to the cash value of their holdings. They are not getting that. They are really being arbitrarily deprived of something like 7½ per cent. on the present valuation, and that may increase. With the steady decline in Government credit, the drop may easily be 10 per cent. before very long. I think that the fault really lies in fixing the vesting date at 30th April before the value of the stocks was ascertained, but primarily it is inherent in this system of compensating by the issue of Government stocks—a thoroughly unsatisfactory way of doing it. We have always held that the basis of stock exchange valuation was wrong.
I hope that the Minister will consider the case I have quoted and other cases. For instance, in the case of the Commercial Gas Company the compensation value was £108 10s., whereas the market value today is £102. I could quote other cases but I will not weary the House with them. The case of the Brighton copartners is so obvious that I do not need to elaborate. During the Committee and Report stages of this Bill, we fought strenuously so that this sort of thing should not happen. We knew that there would be a serious loss of income. To the best of my recollection the Minister countered that by saying that there might be a loss of income but in all probability that would be made up by an improvement in capital. He said:
But what is the situation? They are exchanging an equity—an ordinary—share for gilt-edged Stock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 22nd April, 1948; c. 833.]
We now see what is the worth of gilt-edged stock; it has fallen seven per cent. in the first three months. The Minister was wrong on that point.
At that time my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) moved a most useful Amendment which was briefly that it should be a condition of all British Gas Stock issued for the purposes of the Section that the holder should be entitled after six months to require the redemption thereof in cash at the price at which it was valued for the purposes of the Section. Had that been accepted this trouble would not

have taken place. All that happened was that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his opening remarks in reply, said:
I am never quite sure that the Amendments that the Opposition put down are meant to be taken seriously—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st April, 1948; c. 738.]
He simply did not think it was a serious suggestion.
Again, on the Report stage, another excellent proposal was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch that valuation should be based on the net retainable revenue. That was the suggestion originally made by the T.U.C. for all such compensation. I do not think that that suggestion was favourably received. I will not weary the House by recapitulating the details of it but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it would take much too long. The present method is taking a year and I do not think that the method we suggested would have taken anything like as long as that. The truest remark was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) who said:
We fear that tens of thousands of Gas Stock holders are going to be swindled. I am using that word deliberately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 21st April. 1948; c. 715–6.]
We raised a number of points; we were closured, we were kept up all night, and we were accused of filibustering; but if some notice had been taken of what we said a great deal of trouble would have been saved. However, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we did our best.
There are two ways in which the Minister might be able to avoid the present very unsatisfactory state of affairs. He might bring in a short amending Bill, or it might be done by regulation. I feel, however, that it is too big a thing for regulations. In view of the fact that a further £60 million of stock is due to be issued, I feel that something definite should be done, because gas stock holders today are being paid in depreciated stock.
In the few moments I have left I wish to answer some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). He talked about what happened before the war and the effect it


had on recruiting for the mines. I feel that a lot of that talk about what took place during the 30 years before the war, when the hon. Member and others were doing their utmost to discredit the mine owners, and trying to make out that mining was impossible under private ownership—in the days when they produced a great deal more coal than they do now—was largely done in order to force nationalisation on the country.
Now that we have nationalisation, it is not very popular. I suggest that some of the propaganda has come home to roost and is having a bad effect on the young men who have been brought up to believe that the mines are impossible, with the result that now they do not want to work in them, even though they are nationalised and are said to be all right. The same thing happened during the war in some of the countries over-run by the Germans. Resistance movements were started, and the young people were taught to resist the German Government. When the country was handed back and their own people took charge again, those young people found it very difficult to settle down. I believe that quite a lot of the trouble over the mines is due to the agitation between the wars to prove that working under private enterprise was impossible.

9.4 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have not had a chance to speak in the Debate, but we have to finish in about 25 minutes and I thought therefore, in view of the large number of points which have been raised, that I had better begin my reply.
The Debate has covered a fairly wide field and I wish first of all to say something about electricity. I must make it perfectly clear—if there is any doubt about it—that I take full responsibility for accepting the recommendations of the Clow Committee. I have, in fact, always made that clear both to the public and to the area boards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) said, I appointed that Committee because I thought it was desirable for an expert committee to examine what contribution might be obtained from the domestic consumer towards closing the

potential gap between peak demand and available generating capacity.
Most of their recommendations were technical in character and the Committee made it plain that they could not affect the position for a considerable period of time. Only one proposal might have affected the position in the following winter—the winter of 1948–49—and that was the proposal for a differential tariff; that is, putting up the tariff during the winter months and putting it down correspondingly in the remaining months of the year. There was nothing very unusual about this.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) mentioned the differential tariff in Portugal. I was not aware of that but it might be so. But there were some undertakings, in this country, which operated a differential between summer and winter charge for electricity before nationalisation. The Clow Committee's proposal was therefore only a generalisation of what had been adopted by some undertakings in the past.
We never supposed—and in my first announcement I made it perfectly plain—that here was a perfect answer to the peak load problem. There was one obvious deficiency about the proposal, apart from the hardship aspect. This was that while it might in the winter discourage, and in the summer encourage, the consumption of electricity, we could not be sure that the discouragement and the encouragement would take place solely during the peak hours. Admittedly, there was the risk that the differential tariff might influence consumption in the off-peak periods more than in the peak periods and that it would therefore not contribute towards relieving the burden in the winter.
Nevertheless, we decided that we ought to try out the proposal. For my part, I think that any Minister in my position receiving the Report of an expert Committee, containing four people from the industry, which made a recommendation of this kind, would have been liable to serious criticism if he had completely turned it down. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but I must point out that I made the announcement over a year ago now, and there was very little sign of criticism from the Opposition benches when the announcement was made. It was only much later that the


Opposition began to realise that there was some political advantage to be gained by criticising this proposal.

Mr. Bracken: The definition of the Minister's position is very odd. One of the prime duties of a Minister is to tear up most of the reports of committees submitted to him.

Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman always appoints committees whose reports he then proceeds to tear up. I would not agree that that was really the function of a Minister, however many reports may have been neglected by the Tory Party in the past.
I must make it plain that that differential tariff did not consist simply of a winter surcharge. There was a surcharge during three months plus a rebate during the remaining nine months of the year. I repeat that it was not imposed for the purpose of raising revenue over the year as a whole, but simply to deal with the peak load problem. I am well aware how unpopular it was. That fact was brought to my notice by many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee and by many of the consultative councils. But I would not necessarily have decided to drop the scheme because it was unpopular; for sometimes one must take unpopular actions. It might well have been that, though unpopular, it was the only way in which to prevent load shedding during the peak hours. If that had been the case, I think that we should have had to continue the scheme next winter as well.
When considering this matter, however, I am bound to say that I could not satisfy myself that the differential tariff had made a notable contribution towards reducing the peak demand. It might have done, but the figures do not show it. I do not apologise for this at all. Throughout, we said that it was an experiment. But in view of this, we decided not to continue with it.
I have been asked about the repayment of the surcharge by the British Electricity Authority. The British Electricity Authority never suggested that every individual would get back the amount of the surcharge. Clearly not. The whole purpose of the surchargecum-rebate was to penalise those who used excessive quantities of electricity

during the three winter months and to benefit those who economised during that time and, of course, vice versa so far as the remaining nine months of the year were concerned. Therefore, it would have been quite wrong, and, indeed, the opposite of what was intended, if we were now to turn round—even if that were practicable, which it is not—and hand back the surcharge to those who were grossly excessive in their consumption of electricity—and not all but some undoubtedly have been—while at the same time taking away the rebates from those who had economised through the winter because that would have to be done as well.

Mr. Bracken: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but millions of very poor people now live in all-electric homes, and this was a mean step of the worst possible kind, and I think he ought to repay the money taken by the Treasury from these poor people.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot in the least agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It could not possibly be proved that living in an all-electric house necessarily means that the individual loses over the year as a whole. The person who loses is the one who uses electricity for space heating during the winter but does not use very much electricity in the summer, and it was precisely that type of consumer whom we were anxious to deal with.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) to say something about the generating programme. There is no reason for me to change what I said in the debate six or seven weeks ago. I said then that I thought that this year sufficient new plant would be added to take care of the increase in demand—somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800 megawatts. I still think that is quite likely. It is true that there was some lag in the first quarter but it was regained to a large extent in the second quarter. We are watching the position very carefully, but I must emphasise that it will be some years before we have been able to catch up with all the arrears that have accumulated. It is therefore quite true, as the right. hon. Gentleman said, that if there is a cold Winter there will undoubtedly be difficulties about electricity supplies, unless we can get by voluntary means,


on which we shall rely this Winter, greater economies from the domestic consumer.
I should like next to refer to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) about the gas stock prices. While I cannot go into detail in this matter—for what he wants would require legislation, which would be out of Order—I would like to tell him this. So far as the payment of interest is concerned, I think I can allay his anxieties. The Second Schedule to the Gas Act provides for the payment of interest on unvalued gas securities to be made by the Gas Council as and when directed by the Minister, and that will be done. The first interest date is 1st November, and we are arranging for the Council to make provisional payments of interest on that date to holders of unvalued gas securities.

Colonel Clarke: May we assume that the Minister will be agreeable to paying the interest?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my statement, he will find that that is so.

Mr. Bracken: What about the capital of the unfortunate people?

Mr. Gaitskell: It will be difficult to deal with that point, for what I say will be out of Order. The possibility that holders of gas stock would suffer from a fall in gilt-edged has always existed, along with the equal possibility that there would be a rise in gilt-edged stocks which would benefit the holders of these securities. But when gilt-edged go up the Opposition always make such a frightful row about the rate of interest going down, that my right hon. and learned Friend gets into trouble.

Mr. Bracken: The real villain of the piece is the "casino" Chancellor.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Opposition cannot have it both ways; they cannot have a low rate of interest and a high rate of interest at the same time.
The other point is that we might, in theory, although there would have been great technical difficulties about it, have arranged the valuation of the stock to take effect on the date of issue instead of on vesting day. That would have meant introducing a risk into the income

from these securities, and we have tried, to keep the income secure. There is no, question of our introducing amending: legislation.
I now turn to the questions on coal which the right hon. Gentleman put to, me. I hope nobody would call me a particularly complacent person about the coal situation. I want to say at the start that I do not wish to give the impression that I think everything is absolutely satisfactory, and that we need not worry at all about the coal output. All the same, I think the right hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily gloomy.
He referred to the stock position, and, of course, it is quite true that as far as next winter is concerned the thing that matters most is the level of coal stocks. As I said in this House the other day in answer to a Question, the level at the moment is just about what we planned it to be, and I see no particular reason why we should not reach the expected level of 16,500,000 tons by the beginning of the coal winter on 1st November. There certainly seems to be every reason to expect it from the progress so far this summer. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to study the level of stocks of different types of consumers he can do so in the statement which we issue every week, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not waste the time of the House by reading them out. He will find that except in the case of industrial stocks, which were exceptionally high last year—in fact rather too high—most of the other consumers have stocks at approximately the same level as last year.
As to the year as a whole, the position has not changed very much since the last Debate. We are producing at the rate of perhaps 5 million or 6 million more tons of deep-mined coal than last year, while I think that there is a reasonable prospect that in the remaining months of the year we shall improve considerably on last year so far as opencast coal is concerned, we are certainly much nearer the lower of the two figures which we gave in the Economic Survey—215 million tons as against 220 million. tons,—and I would be happier if we were nearer the 220 million tons.
Although one would wish to have a larger output—I hope it will improve in the remaining months of the year—nevertheless, I would not really feel it


was right to create a great degree of anxiety at this stage about the position next winter. We want more coal for exports, but having regard to the stock position I do not think the outlook for next winter is too bad. Incidentally, we only de-stocked to the extent of 500,000 tons last year, not 3 million tons as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the miners, and suggested that if I put the matter to them they would respond. I have always believed in taking the miners fully into my confidence in this matter. I have not, so far as I can recall, either lectured them or appealed to them. What I have done is to give them the facts of the situation. They do not need lectures or appeals; they are very loyal to the Government and know quite well what we want them to do. That some of them fall back a little is no doubt the case, and others would be the first to admit it, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the key people in the industry are fully aware of the position, and I shall continue to keep them informed.

Mr. McCorquodale: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the colliery winders?

Mr. Gaitskell: Not at this stage. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour rather than for myself and he has the position under consideration. With regard to the Lancashire coal dispute, negotiations are taking place between the union and the Coal Board.
On the question of the service charge to which the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) referred. I would be happy to look into the letter he has if he is satisfied that it is my concern, but I do not want to get involved in matters of day-to-day administration. As far as I know, the position is this. From 1st May last the restrictions which had hitherto existed so far as the wholesale trade was concerned were removed. That meant that anybody who wanted to could buy direct from the Coal Board provided they fulfilled certain conditions. The Coal Board said quite properly, "If we are to provide certain services for customers we shall make a charge for it." I may say that if they had said, "We are making no charge," they would, in fact, have been subsidising that part of their business and

the wholesalers themselves would have had every right to complain about it.

Mr. Peter Roberts: rose—

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot deal with the individual case which has been mentioned; 5s. a ton certainly seems high but, on the other hand, for certain services sums as high have been charged in the past.

Mr. Roberts: Do I understand that the National Coal Board can increase that service charge to any limit they think reasonable, or is a limit fixed by the Minister? I think that is important, otherwise the National Coal Board can raise the charge as they like.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is a maximum price limit as well but, apart from that, consumers are perfectly free to use the factor and not to go direct to the National Coal Board. There is no difficulty about that at all. I cannot deal with this in detail because it is based on a formula which I have not in my head at the moment. If the hon. Member wants information he has only to put down a Question.
I want to come to this pamphlet "Fingers in the Sky." First of all, the principle is perfectly clear: nationalised boards must be non-party in character and behaviour. We are all agreed about that, on all sides of the House. They must not take sides for or against any political party, whether it is the Government or the Opposition or, indeed, any other party. That has always been recognised by the Government and by the National Coal Board. In this case, the National Coal Board were sent the manuscript of this diary by a miner. After some revision it was published and copies were distributed on a non-profit basis. Its purpose was to encourage recruitment. It is 30,000 words in length. I have read this pamphlet and, as far as I can see, the only passages to which exception could be taken are one half-sentence of 33 words and one sentence of 18 words. I will read these, if I may:
Whilst we rejoiced over this shower of amenities,"—
some welfare amenities to which he refers—
so necessary to the well-being and social life, a shadow was cast by Ramsay MacDonald's selling of the Labour Party, and once again the Tories got a grip on the windpipe of the


workpeople by means of the National Government scare. But undismayed, I chose to get married.
The other passage is as follows:
Dick, who, like myself, has known very hard times, says that the prospects in the pit have never been better. His only worry is what will happen if the Tories get back into power at the next Election.

Sir John Mellor: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the opening words of the preface?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is nothing there about the Conservative Party or the Tories but, of course, if the cap fits the hon. Member can wear it.

Mr. McCorquodale: Would the Minister be interested in this quotation if—

Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid there is not time. The pamphlet was issued without reference to the actual Coal Board itself. I do not think anybody would expect that everything that is done in the name of the National Coal Board is seen and approved by the board themselves. That would be a case of the most extreme centralisation one could possibly have. As soon as the Chairman heard about this, however, he at once appreciated that it was a mistake, gave instructions that distribution of the pamphlet was to stop, informed me that in his view it was wrong for the board to have sponsored the production in its present form and said he had given orders which should prevent a similar mistake in the future. He also apologised to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) who went to see him on behalf of the Opposition.
I have only two further observations to make on this. First, it is really a very small matter. It is not a question of the National Coal Board having an opinion and expressing it; it is a question of a miner's view, and I do not think the Opposition should be very surprised that many miners in this country feel as the author of this pamphlet felt on those two points. Secondly, it is desirable that the National Coal Board should be nonparty, but I must say that the Opposition have not always helped to convey that impression by the sort of language they have used about the National Coal Board. The abusive terminology which has been used and which is generally reserved for political opponents may well have given

some people in the National Coal Board the impression that they were not a nonparty organisation and may well have led them to identify their interests with those of my hon. Friends.
Criticism of the National Coal Board is, of course, justified, but this abuse of a semi-personal character which has so frequently been flung at them is quite improper. I hope that in their reasonable objection to this particular pamphlet—and, as I say, there is no disagreement about that—the Opposition themselves will improve their own behaviour in the future when they come to make remarks about the National Coal Board.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister allow me?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, he will not, I am afraid, because there is not time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman cannot take it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Let the hon. Member not be silly. We know that the Opposition are only out to make the utmost political capital they can against nationalisation. They want to show in every possible way that it has failed, that costs and prices have gone up, and that output is low. In point of fact, I have recently been looking at the increase in fuel and power prices since 1947, and it amounts—and this is in the "Statistical Digest," so that anybody can read it who wants to—it amounts to 11 per cent., which is just the same as the average increase in all domestic prices during that period. Therefore, the idea that prices in the nationalised industries have gone up exceptionally by comparison with those in other industries is simply nonsense.
As a matter of fact, in every case the increases in costs that have taken place in coal, gas and electricity would have had to take place if those industries had remained in private enterprise—unless, of course, the Opposition are going to get up to say they would not have improved the miners' wages and conditions. Perhaps they would like to say that on some future occasion; but so far they have never dared to do it. What they like to do all the time, of course, is to confuse the public mind. They mislead the public by getting people to believe that nationalisation is responsible for these


increases in costs, though, in fact, that is not the case. Nevertheless, I warn them that the public will see through this, and that they would be much better advised to stick to the truth, as we do, and get a very much better result.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

CLASS I

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,467,885, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
House of Lords
59,123


2.
House of Commons
592,314


3.
Registration of Electors
230,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)
2,291,926


5.Privy Council Office
18,977


6.
Privy Seal Office
5,665


7.
Charity Commission
45,331


8.
Civil Service Commission
384,320


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
224,250


10.
Government Actuary
21,089


11.
Government Chemist
125,561


12.
Government Hospitality
75,000


13.
The Mint
90


14.
National Debt Office
90


15.
National Savings Committee
658,020


16.
Overlapping Income Tax Payments
33,000


17.
Public Record Office
47,226


18.
Public Works Loan Commission
90


19.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
9,500


20.
Royal Commissions, etc.
86,000


21.
Secret Service
2,000,000


22.
Tithe Redemption Commission
90


23.
Miscellaneous Expenses
494,210


23A.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
107,594


24.
Scottish Home Department
946,815


25.
Scottish Record Office
11,604




£8,467,885"

Mr. McCorquodale: Before the outstanding Votes are put, I should like to say that on this occasion we do not propose to divide the Committee against any of these Votes. That does not mean that there are not certain things with the Government's handling of which, we disagree. It does not mean there are not criticisms that could reasonably be made. How-

ever, there are, of course, other subjects of which we approve, and we should not like our votes to be misrepresented in any quarter.

CLASS II

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £37,495,168, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Foreign Office
1,885,580


2.
Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, &amp;c. (including a Supplementary sum of £745,000)
10,197,300


3.
British Council
1,651,000


4.
United Nations
5,000


5.
International Refugee Organisation
4,137,500


6.
Commonwealth Relations Office
238,440


7.
Commonwealth Services
1,342,560


8.
Oversea Settlement
435,290


10.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (including a Supplementary sum of £6,600,000)
11,012,432


12.
Development and Welfare (Colonies, &amp;c.)
5,603,500


13.
Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
202,500


14.
Imperial War Graves Commission
784,066




£37,495,168"

CLASS III

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £31,436,107, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:

2.
Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
£


2,347,960


3.
Police, England and Wales
11,509,755


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
3,279,420


5.
Child Care, England and Wales
5,324,900


6.
Fire Services, England and Wales
3,513,370


7.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c.
922,591


8.
County Courts, &amp;c.
180,758


9.
Land Registry
90


10.
Public Trustee
90


11.
Law Charges
332,064


12.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
16,365

Scotland




£


13.
Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)
254,320


14.
Police
2,309,591


15.
Prisons
318,373


16.
Approved Schools
132,350


17.
Fire Services
287,271


18.
Scottish Land Court
9,635


19.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
91,835


20.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
90


Ireland


21.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c., Northern Ireland
13,431


22.
Irish Land Purchase Services
591,830




£31,436,107"

It being Half-past Nine o'Clock The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16, forthwith to put severally the Questions,

"That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Revenue Departments and Ministry of Defence Estimates, and in the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

CLASS IV

"That a sum, not exceeding £161,433,990, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Ministry of Education
122,986,282


2.
British Museum
165,712


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
145,315


4.
Imperial War Museum
21,723


5.
London Museum
9,362


6.
National Gallery
45,377


7.
National Maritime Museum
14,078


8.
National Portrait Gallery
11,876


9.
Wallace Collection
16,202


10.
Grants for Science and the Arts
1,870,868


11.
Universities and Colleges, &amp;c., Great Britain
10,071,500


12.
Broadcasting
10,150,000


13.
Festival of Britain, 1951 (including a Supplementary sum of £40,000)
440,000

Scotland




£


14.
Public Education
15,456,222


15.
National Galleries
20,505


16.
National Library
8,968




£161,433,990"

CLASS V

"That a sum, not exceeding £453,010,283, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Ministry of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000,000)
51,925,000


2.
National Health Service, England and Wales
140,424,600


3.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales31,850,000


4.
Registrar-General's Office
323,509


6.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
600,000


7.
Ministry of National Insurance
136,280,500


8.
National Assistance Board
57,850,000


9.
National Insurance Audit Department
87,480


10.
Friendly Societies Registry
36,700


11.
Ministry of Town and Country Planning
928,000


12.
Central Land Board
1,329,000


Scotland


13.
Department of Health for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £125,000)
8,380,000


14.
National Health Service
19,303,000


15.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
3,645,000


16.
Registrar-General's Office
47,494




£453,010,283"

CLASS VI

"That a sum, not exceeding £65,574,627, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Board of Trade
7,418,875


2.
Services in Development Areas
8,171,000


3.
Financial Assistance in Development Areas
352,010


4.
Export Credits
90

CLASS VII

"That a sum, not exceeding £47,370,607, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


2.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
730,000


3.
Public Buildings, Great Britain
25,598,950


4.
Public Buildings, Overseas
1,243,180


5.
Royal Palaces
274,000


6.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
441,000


7.
Miscellaneous Works Services
3,638,645

8.
Rates on Government Property
6,326,073


9.
Stationery and Printing
6,670,779


10.
Central Office of Information
2,259,850


11.
Peterhead Harbour
36,000


Ireland


12.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
152,130




£47,370,607"

CLASS VIII

"That a sum not exceeding £60,473,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Merchant Seaman's War Pensions
153,000


2.
Ministry of Pensions
56,050,000

CLASS IX

"That a sum, not exceeding £55,838,541, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


3.
Ministry of Transport (War Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,250,000)
18,667,000


5.
Foreign Office (German Section)
17,052,241


6.
Administration of certain African Territories (including a Supplementary sum of £1,469,300)
1,949,300


7.
Advances to Allies, &amp;c.
7,000,000

8.
War Damage Commission
1,170,000


9.
Burma War Damage Payments
10,000,000




£55,838,541"

Orders of the Day — REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1949–50

"That a sum, not exceeding £133,558,640, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

£


1.
Customs and Excise
5,861,000


2.
Inland Revenue
14,706,640


3.
Post Office
112,991,000




£133,558,640"

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1949–50

"That a sum, not exceeding £475,695, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence."

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

"That a sum, not exceeding £103,283,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

£


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
1,550,000


5.
Educational Services
695,000


6.
Scientific Services
7,180,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
1,000,000


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.:




Section I.—Personnel
25,900,000



Section II.—Matériel
20,220,000



Section III.—Contract Work
28,550,000


9.
Naval Armaments
13,035,000


12.
Admiralty Office
5,106,000


14.
Merchant Shipbuilding, &amp;c.
47,000




£103,283,000'

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

"That a sum, not exceeding £158,690,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:

£


3.
War Office
2,340,000


4.
Civilians
46,460,000


5.
Movements
22,650,000


6.
Supplies, &amp;c.
33,810,000


7.
Stores
50,000,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
3,430,000




£158,690,000"

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1949–50

"That a sum, not exceeding £60,850,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

£


3.
Air Ministry
3,000,000


4.
Civilians at Outstations
20,846,000


5.
Movements
8,620,000


6.
Supplies
26,040,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
2,344,000




£60,850,000."

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1950, the sum of £1,751,693,881 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Title

Lords Amendment: In line 9, leave out "provide in certain cases for later" and insert "amend the law as to."

9.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the subsequent three Amendments, in lines 11 and 14, are designed to cover Clauses which have already been added to the Bill or it is proposed should be added in the course of our proceedings tonight. The first Amendment covers Clause 39, which relates to permitted hours in the Metropolis. The subsequent Amendment relates to the new Clause B, which it is proposed to insert in page 23, line 35. The second Amendment, in line 11, relates to the restriction of employment of persons under 18 in bars, which is already included in the Bill, and the last Amendment is to cover Clause 38, as to the fixing of notices on church doors.

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF STATE MANAGEMENT TO NEW TOWNS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 7, leave out "section" and insert "Part of this Act."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment slightly alters the definition of a new town for the purposes of Clause 1. It is necessary to make it clear that the definition applies to the other Clauses in Part 1 only so long as


a development corporation is in existence. Clause 1 is not affected whether one is in existence or not. A new town will be a State management area for the purposes of Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 10, leave out "commencement" and insert "passing."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, and the Amendment to line 30, are similar. They are only drafting but, since the Bill was drafted originally, new provisions have been put in making the commencement of different parts of the Act at different times. Therefore, it is more appropriate that in this connection the passing of the Act rather than the commencement, which varies from one part of the Act to another, should be the revelant phrase.

Lords Amendment: In line 33, leave out "county and county district council" and insert "local authority."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There are four Amendments in a row which deal with substantially the same point, namely, the definition of local authority, in line 33, line 42, line 45 on page 3, and on page 4 the Amendment to leave out lines 7 to 9, and to insert the words on the Order Paper.
Since this Bill was first introduced, one of the subsections has been made to apply to existing State management districts. That includes Carlisle, which includes a county borough. Whereas the phrase "county and county district council" was originally sufficient, it is no longer so, and the purpose of this Amendment is to use the words "local authority" in each case and then to define "local authority" as including a county borough. This is done in the third of these Amendments in line 45 on page 3.

Clause 2.—(RESTRICTION OF SALE AND SUPPLY, OTHERWISE THAN BY SECRE TARY OF STATE, OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 18, leave out "or club."

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment can be properly discussed with the next two Amendments on the Order Paper, namely, in lines 22 and 25. The effect of these three Amendments would be to deprive the State management scheme of any control over new registrations of clubs in areas under State management. Some regard must be paid to the number of club registrations in State managed areas for clearly if an unlimited number of clubs could spring up, there would be no limit to the facilities for drinking, and it would be impossible to plan the arrangements for the supply of drink on any reasonable basis. It would obviously be necessary to refuse authority if an attempt were made to plaster a new town with an excessive number of registered clubs. Therefore, it is essential to retain the requirement that, as regards new clubs and existing unregistered clubs, the authority of the Secretary of State should be required for the supply of intoxicating liquors. It is also important to retain the power to attach conditions to authorisations for clubs.
As I said in Standing Committee at the seventh Sitting, I have had some correspondence with the Club and Institute Union as to the conditions to be attached, and I gather that they are satisfied with the assurances I have been able to give them. However, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself made it clear in the same Debate that the attachment of conditions is still a matter which must be considered in the light of the circumstances of each case as it arises.
9.45 p.m.
In dealing with the supply of liquor, it will not do to overlook the problem of proprietary clubs. No Government has been able to draw a line between genuine members' clubs and questionable proprietary clubs. The Royal Commission which attempted to solve most of the


insoluble problems with regard to this matter gave up this particular one. In these circumstances, the possibilities cannot be ignored of a club to which an authorisation has been granted getting into wrong hands and, for example, setting out to supply drink on the basis of easy membership during the afternoon break when public houses are closed. I have reviewed the conditions which were attached to some of the licences in the Carlisle area and I have come to the conclusion that they are unduly oppressive, and they will be waived in the case of any future clubs.
I am not without experience in this matter, for I have been a member of one club or another connected with the Workmen's Club and Institute Union for the past 50 years. I have been the active president of one club and also attached to the British Legion for the last 30 years, and I know the problems that confront those running respectable working men's clubs. It is highly desirable that we should take such steps as we can in these new areas to ensure that they are not overrun with disreputable clubs and that the good name of the best clubs can be preserved. I know that in another place it was suggested that it would be very wrong for a Conservative Secretary of State, if ever there is another one, to have to consider an application from a Socialist club, and that equally a Socialist Secretary of State might find it difficult to grant a registration for a Conservative club.

Colonel Wheatley: There never will be another Socialist Secretary of State.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an unconditional prophecy, which is always a very dangerous thing. My statement was merely conditional. I do not think, however, that that is the experience of administration of this and other matters and I have no doubt myself that these applications, no matter which party are in power, will receive consideration on a judicial basis and that the proper answer will be given having regard to the needs of the area which it is proposed that the club shall serve.
These are the only Amendments to which I am asking the House to disagree. All the others have been carried through by agreement. Most of them

redeem pledges I gave during the latter stages of the passage of the Bill in this House and I think it is reasonable to ask the Lords to reconsider their attitude upon this particular group of Amendments.

Mr. Grimtston: I hardly think it is a sufficient reason for disagreeing with this series of Amendments that they are the only ones with which the Home Secretary is asking the House to disagree. I have another point of view to put forward. If these Amendments are disagreed to, the position will be, as the Home Secretary has said, that he will have complete control over what clubs shall open in the new town areas and over the conditions under which they shall open. We believe that that is objectionable, for reasons which I shall give.
It should be remembered that there are many different types of clubs. There are the political clubs, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; there are clubs such as those of the British Legion, and in many areas there are other social clubs also. We believe that control by the Secretary of State over the opening and running of these clubs is objectionable for three reasons. First, there is the question of political pressure, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and I agree with him. I am sure the average Home Secretary would not try to operate this power to suppress political clubs advancing his political beliefs, but a curious incident happened in Carlisle in 1946, I am advised. The Conservative Club in a certain district in Carlisle applied for permission to go to the licensing justices for a licence and this was refused. The ground on which it was refused, apparently, was that if the Conservative Club got it, it would be unreasonable to withhold it from the Liberal and Socialist clubs, if they wanted it.
I am astonished at the idea that we should try to prohibit all political parties having clubs in a certain area, and I do not understand that point of view. It was suggested that if the club called itself "constitutional" and not "Conservative" the application might be looked upon more favourably. I put it to the House that it is really intolerable that the great political parties, or one of the great political parties, should be refused permission


to apply for a licence because, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is undesirable for three political parties to have clubs. Considering that in almost every other area in the country that is more or less the rule, it seems monstrous that this idea should be introduced into the State Management districts.
There is another reason, that the Secretary of State, in granting permission to a club to open, may be influenced by considerations of competition with his own business. Here he is acting as judge and jury in his own case, and I think that is a formidable objection. We are not suggesting that there should be unlimited right of getting licences for clubs, as the Home Secretary suggested. We are suggesting that application should have to be made to the licensing justices, but that they should be the arbiters and not the Secretary of State, who has a competitive interest in the area.
There is a third reason why we object to this unlimited control in these areas being in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is on the rather broader ground of interference by a nationalised monopoly in the social wishes of a community, if people want to have various social clubs. It may be that, in the case

of many clubs, if they do not have a licence they will find it very difficult to carry on, not because drinking is the main part of their business, but because it is ancillary to it and helps it along in more ways than one. But if a nationalised monopoly can say, "We will not allow you to have things which have been for many years and are now enjoyed in other parts of the country," that is a matter we cannot understand.

We think the matter should go before the licensing justices and, if people want to form a club and can satisfy the licensing justices of their bona fides and that they fulfil the social desires of people in the district, they should have the licence. It should not be open to the Secretary of State, for political reasons, for reasons of fear of competition in his own trade, or because a nationalised monopoly can interfere with the wishes of the community, to refuse licences for these clubs. For those three reasons, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Motion.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 106.

Division No. 242.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Acland, Sir R.
Brown, George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brawn, T. J. (Ince)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Albu, A. H.
Burden, T. W.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Burke, W. A.
Dye, S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Callaghan, James
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Alpass, J. H.
Carmichael, James
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Andersen, F. (Whitehaven)
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Attewell, H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Austin, H. Lewis
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Ayles, W. H.
Collick, P.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Collindridge, F.
Ewart, R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Collins, V. J.
Farthing, W. J.


Baird, J.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Fernyhough, E.


Balfour, A.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cook, T. F.
Follick, M.


Barstow, P. G.
Cooper, G.
Foot, M. M.


Barton, C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Forman, J. C.


Battley, J. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Benson, G.
Daggar, G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Berry, H.
Daines, P.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Binns, J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibbins, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gibson, C. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gilzean, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Boardman, H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Gooch, E. G.


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Bowden, H. W.
Deer, G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Diamond, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dobbie, W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dodds, N. N.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donovan, T.
Gunter, R. J.




Guy, W. H.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hale, Leslie
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Messer, F.
Steele, T.


Hardman, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)


Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)


Harrison, J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mitchison, G. R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Haworth, J.
Morley, R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Swingler, S.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Symonds, A. L.


Holman, P.
Natly, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Horabin, T. L.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Houghton, Douglas
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Titterington, M. F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tolley, L.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, T. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Usborne, Henry


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Johnston, D. H.
Parkin, B. T.
Walkden, E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Pearson, A.
Walker, G. H.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Piratin, P.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Warbey, W. N.


Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Popplewell, E.
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Watson, W. M.


Keenan, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Kendall, W. D.
Price, M. Philips
Weitzman, D.


Kenyon, C.
Pritt, D. N.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


King, E. M.
Randall, H. E.
West, D. G.


Kinley, J.
Ranger, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Kirby, B. V.
Rankin, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Reeves, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lavers, S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Richards, R.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Levy, B. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams. D. J. (Neath)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lyne, A. W.
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McAllister, G.
Sharp, Granville
Willis, E.


McEntee, V. La T.
Shawcross, C. N. Widnes)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon J.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Shurmer, P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McKinlay, A. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Woods, G. S.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wyatt, W.


McLeavy, F.
Simmons, C. J.
Yates, V. F.


MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skinnard, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Baldwin, A. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Barlow, Sir J.
De la Bère, R.
Haughton, S. G. (Antrim)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Head, Brig. A. H.


Bennett, Sir P.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Birch, Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Drewe, C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Duthie, W. S.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Fraser, M. C. P. (Stone)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Keeling, E. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gage, C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carson, E.
Gammans, L. D.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.


Cole, T. L.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Lipson, D. L.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harden, J. R. E.
Low, A. R. W.







Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Nutting, Anthony
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


McFarlane, C. S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Osborne, C.
Walker-Smith, D.


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Pickthorn, K.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Maitland, Comdr, J. W.
Pitman, I. J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Mellor, Sir J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)



Morrison, Maj. J. C. (Salisbury)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Ropner, Col. L.
Commander Agnew and


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Mr. Studholme.


Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION WHERE LICENSED PREMISES ACQUIRED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 8, leave out from "business" to end of line 14.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the Amendment in line 23 go together. Hon. Members may remember that this arises from an Opposition Amendment proposed at an earlier stage which my right hon. Friend accepted subject to a slight redrafting. I do not think that I need enter into a discussion of the very small changes which have been made as a matter of drafting. I think that they will meet the wishes of the House. The principal point is that this provision will now include a resident tenant or manager.
There is one further matter of note which I think was not mentioned when we discussed this subject earlier. I refer to the words in the last three lines of the new subsection:
… on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager employed in a business such as was carried on in the premises before their acquisition.
That is a different phrase from that in page 7, line 12, which is:
… under conditions not less favourable than those under which he was a tenant thereof immediately before the premises were so acquired.
The purpose of that is to avoid overlapping. If tenant rights are extinguished under compulsory acquisition, compensation must be paid. It seemed unreasonable that the State should not only pay

compensation but should then be obliged to continue precisely the conditions for which it has already paid. This alteration is designed to meet that point.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 5.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LICENCES IN SUSPENSE IN STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 4, leave out from "by" to "for" in line 9 and insert: "the Lands Tribunal."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, with the Amendment in line 15, is designed to meet the position as a result of the passing into law of the Lands Tribunal Act which received the Royal Assent on 14th July. They follow the procedure laid down in that Act.

Clause 15.—(COMMENCEMENT OF FORE GOING PROVISIONS OF PART III.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 14, leave out Clause 15.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient at the same time to consider the Amendment in line 22, to leave out Clause 16, and the Amendment in line 27 to insert the new Clause A—(Commencement of Part II).
This new Clause replaces the two which it is proposed to delete. The effect is to defer the commencement of Part II of the Bill to a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and to leave the transitional provisions to be made by order. The need for this deferment arises from


the fact that the Licensing Bill is now very far ahead of the Justices of the Peace Bill. The House will remember that there are provisions relating particularly to non-county boroughs in that Bill, which is now in another place, and which is closely linked with this Bill. This Bill was drafted so as to leave the whole of that problem open for discussion on the other Bill. It was thought that the two Bills might become law at approximately the same time, but that does not appear to be the case any longer, and it would cause great confusion if they were to come into force at different times. Therefore, by having an appointed day under this system, we hope to co-ordinate the two.

Clause 18.—(DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 25, at end, insert:
() In accordance with the provisions of this Act, the said section forty shall have effect as set out in the Schedule (Section forty of Act of 1910 as amended by this Act) to this Act.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really only a drafting Amendment. It has been requested in order to make the position clear and to meet the suggestion that Section 40 of the 1910 Act, which has been considerably amended by this Bill, should appear in full. This will be done in the new Schedule.

New Clause.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In line 27 at end, insert new Clause A:

(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act, except section seventeen thereof, shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(2) An order of the Secretary of State under this section may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State expedient in consequence of the coming into operation of the said provisions of this Part of this Act.
(3) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by this section to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

Clause 19.—(SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFI CATES FOR CERTAIN HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 38, leave out "frequently" and insert "resorting to."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really a drafting Amendment, and there is very little difference between the new wording and the old. The Amendment is necessary to bring the matter into line with further Government Amendments to Clause 23.

Clause 23.—(REVOCATION OF SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 1, leave out from "time" to "is" in line 3 and insert "while a special hours certificate."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This removes a former limitation in the Bill as it stood. It would not have been possible for the Commissioner to apply for the revocation of a licence in the first 12 months, and the object of that was to give time for an hotel or restaurant to work up to the full use of the new provisions. There has now been inserted a new Clause defining the requirements of Clause 24 (2), showing that the requirements are that there should be certain use for dancing and refreshments six days a week. It is quite clear that it would be wrong that it should be possible for that establishment not to fulfil that requirement and to use the premises only occasionally or perhaps only once or twice a week, and it no longer seems necessary.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 17, at beginning, insert:
or that on the whole the persons resorting to the premises or part are there at times when the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor therein is lawful by virtue only of the special hours certificate, for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor rather than for the purpose of dancing or obtaining refreshments other than intoxicating liquor.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides additional grounds on which the Commissioner of Police may apply for the revocation of a special hours certificate. It had to be inserted owing to the difficulty of applying to registered clubs the criterion which was originally applied to hotels and restaurants under Clause 19. The House may remember that it was a condition that they must qualify for the reduced licence duty by virtue of the fact that their receipts from sale of liquor would not exceed a certain amount. It is not possible to apply that to clubs. Originally, clubs did not come into this particular provision of the Bill, and, therefore, it was possible to be content with that provision, but now that they are in, it is necessary to attain the same objective by the new form of words proposed to be inserted.

Mr. Marlowe: Before we leave that, could the hon. Gentleman give us a little guidance about it? As far as I know it is an entirely new form of wording to say that
on the whole the persons resorting to
etc.
There have been words in the Statute before to the effect that "in the main" something happens or "on general principles," something happens, but never, so far as I know, have I seen wording of this kind. If the hon. Gentleman could give us some guidance about it and indicate that it is a well accepted form, we shall, of course, have no difficulty in agreeing with him. I am bound to say that it is an entirely new one on me, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend could give us some assistance in regard to it.

Mr. Grimston: I think it would be a good thing if we could have some information about this because though it may be a lawyer's point, I think it is important, and if the right hon. Gentleman can give us any information about it, we shall be much obliged.

Mr. Ede: I cannot say that I know of any precedent for it, but I think the phrase is well understood by ordinary people. However, I am not so certain that perhaps a lawyer might not find

something in the point. I am sorry it has arisen in this way, but the great legal batteries that are usually brought to bear on these Bills in another place were apparently satisfied with the words, and I think that must be the best safeguard. I do recall once in this House during the 1929–31 Parliament my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor being asked by the late Sir Dennis Herbert how a hole would be valued for land value purposes. He replied, "as a whole," and one gathered that the reporters had some difficulty in writing the two words when they transcribed their notes.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 18, at end, insert:
() At any time while a special hours certificate granted under section twenty of this Act is in force the Commissioner of Police for the metropolis may apply to the magistrate for the revocation of the certificate on the ground that the revocation thereof is expedient by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct on the premises or part to which the certificate relates; and if the magistrate is satisfied as to the ground of the application he shall revoke the certificate.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment will enable the Commissioner of Police to apply for a revocation of a special hours certificate on account of disorderly or indecent conduct. It is limited to clubs because the existing law already provides for the case of licensed premises.

Clause 24.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 4, at end, insert:
; and references in the said provisions to providing dancing shall be construed as references to providing facilities for dancing which are adequate having regard to the number of persons for whose reception in the premises or part of premises in question provision is made.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the special hours certificate should not be granted and can be revoked unless an adequate proportion of floor space is provided for dancing.

Clause 25.—(PROHIBITION OF CONSUMP TION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OUT SIDE PERMITTED HOURS AT PARTIES ORGANISED FOR GAIN.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 44, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
(8) In the case of premises in a part of the metropolis specified for the purposes of subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) before the first day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty, any time at which the consumption of intoxicating liquor would be lawful on premises of a club as respects which subsection (3) of section twenty-two of this Act had effect for the time being shall be treated for the purposes of this section as not being outside the permitted hours;
(b) where it is proposed that such premises shall become premises of a registered club, application may be made for the grant of a certificate under the Second Schedule to this Act and of a special hours certificate under section twenty of this Act before the registration of the club and its occupation of the premises, and accordingly references in that Schedule and section to a registered club and premises thereof shall include references to a club proposed to be registered and to premises proposed to be occupied by the club."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment making arrangements whereby certain of what are now called bottle parties will have time to make necessary alterations to enable them to qualify to register as clubs. I think perhaps the principal point is that during the interim period, while they are allowed to continue, before they are registered as clubs under these provisions which we are proposing drinking at bottle parties will have to be kept within the hours permissible to hotels and restaurants under the special hours certificate. It would obviously be unfair if they were to continue to be completely unrestricted during that interim period.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: There is a distinction between a club and a bottle party. Does this apply to both clubs and bottle parties?

Mr. Ede: It applies to bottle parties only.

Clause 29.—(RESTRICTION OF RETAIL SALES BY SPIRIT OR WINE DEALERS WITHOUT JUSTICES' LICENCE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 32, leave out "commencement" and insert "passing."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, together with that in page 23, line 10, is similar to Amendments which have already been accepted and are little more than drafting.

New Clause.—(REMOVAL OF OFF- LICENCES.)

Lords Amendment: In line 35, at end, insert new Clause B:
Paragraph (5) of section twenty-six of the Act of 1910 (which provides that the justices shall not make an order for the ordinary removal of a justices' licence unless they are satisfied that no objection is made by the owner of the premises from which the licence is to be removed, or by the holder of the licence, or by any other person whom the justices may determine to have the right to object to the removal) shall have effect, in relation to the making of an order for the removal of a justices' off-licence, as if for the words from "by the owner" to "any other person" there were substituted the words "by the holder of the licence or by any person, other than the holder of the licence.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause was adopted in another place after Amendments had been put down from both sides to Clause 29 designed to prevent the Clause prejudicing the position of tenants of bottle shops who would be unable to secure ordinary removal without the consent of the owner of the premises unless some amendment were made to the Act of 1910. The new Clause will have the effect of placing the owner in the same position as any other interested party and will, therefore, leave discretion to the justices.

Clause 30.—(PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN NOT TO BE EMPLOYED IN BARS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 14, leave out second "or" and insert "and."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is merely a drafting Amendment relating to the definition of a bar and it corresponds to the definition of a bar which is already to be found in the Children and Young Persons Act.

First Schedule.—(STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 28, after "except" insert
that part of that parish which immediately before the coming into operation of section nine of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949, was known as.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, again, is a drafting Amendment made necessary by the passing of the Water (Scotland) Act, which has only recently become law.

New Schedule.—(DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 39, at end insert new Schedule.

SECTION FORTY OF ACT OF 1910 AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT

40.—(1) No justice shall act for any purpose under this Act in any county or county borough, or be capable of being appointed or being a member of any committee therein for any such purpose, who is, or is in partnership with, a common brewer, distiller, maker of malt for sale, or retailer of malt or of any intoxicating liquor, in that county or county borough:

Provided that this provision shall not prevent a justice adjudicating in the case of persons charged with offences under section twelve of the Licensing Act, 1872, or section two of the Licensing Act, 1902.

(2) No justice who holds any share or stock in a company which is such a brewer, distiller, maker of malt or retailer as aforesaid in any county or county borough shall be capable of being appointed or being a member of any divisional licensing committee or county confirming and compensation committee in the county, or of any borough licensing or confirming and compensation committee in the borough, as the case may be, unless before his appointment as a member of the committee he has disclosed to the justices appointing him the fact that he holds the share or stock.

Provided that a member of any such committee disqualified from being a member thereof by acquiring any such share or stock

may be re-appointed if before his re-appointment he has disclosed to the justices re-appointing him the fact that he has acquired the share or stock.

(3) A person who is the beneficial owner of any such share or stock as aforesaid held by him (whether his beneficial ownership extends to the whole holding or to a part thereof or to an interest therein only) shall not be appointed or re-appointed to be a member of any such committee as aforesaid unless the justices appointing or re-appointing him are satisfied that the extent to which the company in question carries on or is interested in the business of brewing, distilling, making of malt for sale or retailing of malt or of any intoxicating liquor is so small in comparison with its whole business that the fact that the said person is interested in the company affords no reasonable ground for suggesting that he is not a proper person to be a member of such a committee.

(4) No justice shall act for any purpose under this Act in respect of any premises in the profits of which that justice is interested, or of which he is wholly or partly the owner, lessee, or occupier, or for the owner, lessee, or occupier of which he is manager or agent:

Provided that a justice shall not be disqualified under this provision to act in respect of any premises by reason of his having vested in him a legal interest only, and not a beneficial interest, in those premises or the profits thereof.

(5) No act done by any justice disqualified by this section shall be invalid by reason only of that disqualification, and no act done by any justice who by virtue of this section has ceased to be a member of a committee shall be invalid by reason only of the cessation of membership.

(6) If any justice, knowing that the circumstances are such that under this Act he is disqualified from acting for any of the purposes thereof, acts as a justice for that purpose he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, to be recovered by action in the High Court:

Provided that a justice shall not be liable to a fine in respect of more than one offence committed by him under this section before the institution of any proceedings for the recovery of the fine.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the new Schedule to which I referred earlier which sets out the amended Section 40 of the old Act in full.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In Standing Committee I suggested that the Bill might be made a little more comprehensible by the inclusion of a Schedule of this kind and I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for having used the


machinery made available to them by the existence of another place to improve the Bill in this way.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Chetwynd, Commander Galbraith, Mr. Grimston, Mr. Nally and Mr. Ede; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Ede.]

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE REGULATIONS

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence (General) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
This is the first of a number of sets of regulations which will be presented under the Civil Defence Act, 1948. These particular ones follow from the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, which deal with the rôle to be played by local authorities in the civil defence system. Perhaps I may just go a little wide for the moment of these actual regulations, to say that, in respect of the local authorities' activities in the realm of civil defence, it will be necessary to enable them to recruit personnel, and that I hope the House will agree to it in the next set of regulations.
It will also be necessary, in due course, to introduce several different sets of regulations, not all of them, probably, to be introduced by my right hon. Friend but by other designated Ministers, in order to define the special functions of the local authorities—for instance, in relation to evacuation, fire services, and so on. These will follow; but first, before we reach that stage, it is necessary to give local authorities power to organise themselves to play their part in civil defence, particularly to carry out the work which is put upon them by Section 2 (2) of the

Act, and that is the subject matter of the general regulations which I am now submitting to the House.
These regulations have been fully discussed with the local authorities and with other Departments, and, so far as I am aware, the administrative arrangements which they contain are generally agreed. I do not think the House will require me to go into the details of all these regulations. They are quite short, and I think that they are quite clear, and that the explanatory note at the end describes what each regulation does, probably more shortly than I could, and quite as clearly. It is, of course, intended, as the House already knows, that the local authorities should play a very big part in the civil defence system, and all that these regulations do is to enable them to set up the appropriate committees, to delegate such powers as may be necessary. There are provisions for default powers given to the designated Minister, and then, for such matters as the necessary control of civil defence works and workers, and provisions for maintaining and storing equipment. The whole thing is a purely administrative matter to enable the local authorities to take the first steps in carrying out their duties, and so I ask the House to approve these regulations.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I have examined these regulations and, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, they provide nothing but the bare necessary administrative machinery to enable local authorities to perform, and carry out, civil defence functions. In those circumstances, we do not propose to offer any opposition or, indeed, any comments, upon these regulations; but we shall await, with interest and with expectancy, the further regulations which will tell us precisely what the Government intends to do in the realm of civil defence.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Bechervaise: I understand that the local authorities have been in consultation with the Home Secretary, and I would liked to have heard what was the attitude of the non-county boroughs towards these regulations when the Home Secretary was discussing the matter mainly with the county authorities and the county boroughs. I am glad to see that there is a possibility that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to use


his influence with the county authorities in carrying out these regulations, so as to give the non-county boroughs, particularly those on the outskirts of London, far greater freedom than they enjoyed in the early part of civil defence activities during the last war.
We were confronted, from time to time, with various difficulties because of the ponderousness of the machine, with the result that the county authority had to give permission to approach the Ministry, at least for a time, to get permission to carry out certain work and to acquire certain equipment. Incidentally, the non-county local authority spent, in some instances, fairly large sums to get a job done quickly. Is it the intention of the Home Secretary to use his influence, particularly with county authorities in their relationship with the extra-Metropolitan non-county boroughs, so as to delegate a greater degree of freedom to these authorities in the organisation of civil defence?

10.33 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I am quite sure that the House will be pleased to know that these regulations are simple and easy to understand. But I would like to urge that their issue should not be any longer delayed because certain of the local authorities with which I have to deal have been waiting for a long time for the issue of the regulations. Moreover, regulations regarding their duties in connection with civil defence have been issued to the Fighting Services, and have been issued to other bodies besides local authorities. The local authorities feel that they are lagging behind. They have been given an intimation that they are to receive a series of regulations giving a sort of sketch of what they may be required to do, but no definite regulations have yet been issued. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that these are issued immediately.

10.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In answer to the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Bechervaise), I can say that I do desire that there shall be the closest co-operation between the county and the county district authorities, especially the large non-county boroughs. It will be seen

that there is a small group of large non-county boroughs which have been given a special position. They are Cambridge, Chesterfield, Luton, Swindon, and the City of Peterborough, which are large urban populations surrounded by a very considerable tract of country which has no urban characteristic at all. I think they stand in a special category. It may be possible to add a few other county districts to that number. When we come to the great built-up areas a rather different position arises, because it is quite clear that there must be co-operation between the authorities throughout that belt of country. Taking the district to which my hon. Friend more particularly alluded, while I hope that each of the non-county boroughs will have considerable opportunities for dealing with their own particular problems it can be most efficiently done in consultation and co-operation with the adjoining built-up areas. I do not think they stand quite in the same category as the five non-county boroughs I have mentioned. It is my hope that as wide a measure of delegation as is consistent with securing an efficient and economical service shall be given.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (General) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence Corps Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
The purpose of these regulations is to confer upon the councils of county, county borough, Metropolitan boroughs, and certain specified county districts set out in the Schedule, functions of organising the Civil Defence Corps. The House, I think, is already aware that the intention is that there will be a National Civil Defence Corps constituted by warrant, which will be organised in local divisions through the local authorities. It will be on an entirely voluntary basis in peace-time and it is not the intention for the time being that there will be any whole-time war commitments. Of course, the conditions will have to be supplemented by war-time personnel in the event of war and no doubt there will have to be mobile reserves under central control, but that will be for other regulations.
The Civil Defence Corps will undertake, in general, the duties which fall upon the local authorities, but not necessarily all of them. Some of the specialised activities carried out, for instance, by the Police and Fire Service, for which special qualifications will be required, will have to be dealt with separately. These regulations, like the previous ones, have been fully discussed with the local, authorities and also with the National Federation of Civil Defence Associations and the Association of London Chief Wardens. There is, once again, a general agreement about them and I can assure the House the local authorities have been kept fully informed of the Government's plans up to the present. The only outstanding point is the one to which my right hon. Friend referred in connection with the previous regulations—the possibility of additions to the county districts who might qualify to be added to the list at present in the Schedule.
The regulations are designed to come into force immediately, and if that occurs it is hoped recruiting can begin in the Autumn and training very shortly thereafter. Just how quickly training can begin will depend on the provision of instructors and it may be difficult to provide sufficient instructors throughout the country without any delay. But there are already two Schools of Instructors, one at Falfield in Gloucestershire and another at Easingwold in Yorkshire, which have been in operation since May, and already a supply of freshly-trained instructors is beginning to flow. A Civil Defence Staff College for senior officers will shortly be operating. The exact age and conditions of enlistment are not yet finally fixed, but it will be necessary to avoid cut-throat competition with the other auxiliary forces.
It is intended that the conditions should be flexible and give scope for members of voluntary bodies, including women's voluntary bodies, who will be able to play their part in civil defence while still remaining members of their own voluntary organisations. Throughout the whole organisation, so far, of civil defence, there has been an excellent understanding with the Armed Forces and I think the respective rôles of the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence Corps are fully appreciated. There never has been any question of too much responsibility being given to the army for civil defence. The army is ready

to help and is taking close interest in the whole problem, but the burden of civil defence will fall primarily upon the Civil Defence Corps. I am well aware that these regulations have been awaited with some impatience by a number of keen civil defence workers throughout the country, and I hope the House will now be prepared to approve them.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Peake: We welcome these regulations, and we also welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said in explaining them to the House. However, we do not regard this as an altogether suitable opportunity for a full discussion upon the methods of raising a civil defence force and the precise rôle which that force will play. This, and other things connected with the force, we should like to debate more fully in the Autumn, when the plans of the right hon. Gentleman have proceeded somewhat further than they have yet done.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence Corps Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

10.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
These regulations are similar in nearly all respects to those just moved for England and Wales. Ministerial responsibility in Scotland for civil defence, apart from one or two technical matters, such as training, rests upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is different from what was the case in the last war, when the Minister for Home Security was responsible for these matters for the whole of Great Britain. Those who knew the circumstances will remember that this led to difficulties where there were borderlines between Departments of Health and other services in civil defence and those services which came under the Home Secretary. So, in this case, there has been a complete devolution of the responsibility, with the exception of the matters which are dealt with on a United Kingdom basis, such as training. The Secretary of State for Scotland, under these regulations has representatives upon all the Committees,


the joint planning staffs, and other organisations dealing with these joint matters. These regulations have been before representatives of the various local authority representative organisations, and they are in accord.
The general regulations now before the House deal with Section 2 (2) of the Civil Defence Act in the same way as the other general regulations. As it is not proposed to confer any civil defence function upon a county council in respect of only part of a landward area, it is not necessary to include any provision corresponding to Regulation 8 of the draft regulations for England and Wales. As the definition of the term "local authority" for Scotland in Section 9 (1) of the Civil Defence Act includes the joint police committees, the joint fire committees and joint water boards, provisos have been added to Regulations 1 and 2 (1) to ensure that these joint committees shall exercise the powers of combining and delegating conferred by the regulations only with the consent of the constituent authorities.

10.44 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, these regulations are on precisely the same lines, with the small differences he mentioned, as the regulations for England and, therefore, I have nothing to add to what the right hon. Gentleman has said except this: that we are glad to notice that Ministerial responsibility now rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is where we think it ought to rest. We shall watch with interest how these regulations work out.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: How much does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be the cost to the taxpayer of implementing these regulations?

Mr. Woodburn: I should like notice of that question.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (General) (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence Corps (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which

was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
There are one or two differences between these regulations and those for England and Wales that it might be desirable to mention. It is proposed in Regulation 1 that in Scotland the function of raising a division or corps shall be conferred only on counties, joint counties and large burghs. In England and Wales the function will extend to certain county districts specified in the Schedule to the draft regulations.
The Scottish Regulation 4 is designed to provide for the case where the members of the Civil Defence Corps after receiving their basic training are, in effect, seconded to a specific service which is run by an authority other than the civil defence recruiting authority. For example, in Scotland the wardens' section of the Corps will be the responsibility of the police authorities—joint police committees and chief constables. This, of course, is to be a voluntary service and in no way a professional service.
The English regulations, on the other hand, are designed to enable the organisation of the wardens' service in any particular area to be entrusted to the chief constable or other police officer, who will act under the control not of the police authority but of the civil defence recruiting authority. As in England and Wales, it is not proposed to make use of the Civil Defence Corps for the expansion of the police or fire services in Scotland. There will be under review an expansion of the special constabulary and also the organisation of an auxiliary fire service based on the existing fire brigades. Copies of the draft regulations now before the House, together with the Government's plans, were sent to all local authorities, and they will also receive copies of the further regulations about to be presented to Parliament.
The training centres which have been opened by the Home Office in England will be available also for the training of people from Scotland in the meantime; and, of course, since training is a United Kingdom function, these will be jointly under the two Ministers. In Scotland, Taymouth Castle, also, will be available after January as a training centre for this work. These points to which I have referred are the main distinctions between the regulations of the two countries.

Commander Galbraith: I merely say that we welcome these regulations. We are glad they are at last available—not that we are complaining very much at the slight delay that has occurred in producing them—and we hope that recruiting, when it starts, which we hope will be immediately, and the training of recruits, will proceed satisfactorily. It is advisable that there should be a training centre in Scotland, and I am very glad indeed that Taymouth Castle is to be used for this purpose.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence Corps (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)

10.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
In moving the first of the three Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Orders, I should like to say a few words about the way in which I have brought them before the House. I received a report from the Boundary Commission with regard to three groups of constituencies. The three constituencies were dealt with in one report and, as far as the wording of the Act under which I bring the Orders to the House is concerned, it would have been possible to have made only one order covering the three groups of constituencies; but it seemed to me that that would present a difficulty to the House in its discussion of this matter.
It might very well be that two of the groups were non-controversial, but there might be issues arising with regard to the third. In order to deal with the matter, it would be necessary for the House to defeat the two which were non-controversial in order to deal with the one which was controversial, so I have made a separate order in respect of each group of constituencies. I think that is the fairest way of bringing a matter like this before the House. It is true that it may involve the Minister in more trouble

in that he might have to take part in three prolonged discussions, but in a matter of this kind I do not think we should present to the House a conglomeration of proposals on the "take it or leave it" principle when a majority of the House might desire to leave one or two and be faced with the proposition that if they did so they would have to disagree with others with which they desired to agree. Should any other reports come from the Parliamentary Boundary Commissioners, I would propose to submit them in the same way so that a clear vote on each proposal can be recorded by the House if it so desires. I hope that the House will feel that what I have done is for its convenience.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This is the first occasion on which orders of this character have been submitted to the House under the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1944. I am assured there is no objection to any of these three orders by my hon. Friends, but, as this is the first occasion on which this procedure has been adopted, there are one or two points I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
Hitherto, any alteration of constituencies has always been embodied in a Schedule to a Bill and has therefore been capable of amendment by the House. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is right when he gets a report from the Boundary Commission under Section 4 of the Act of 1944 to submit separate orders dealing with each constituency affected, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only under Section 4 may the Commission do what they have done in this case, which is to make recommendations in regard to three constituencies, but they have also the duty under Section 1 of the Act to make at intervals of not less than three and not more than seven years, reviews affecting the constituencies throughout the country as a whole. It may well be that when the general review of constituencies is undertaken by the Boundary Commission—or Commissions, because there are separate commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—the right hon. Gentleman or his successor, whoever he may be, may be faced with the necessity of submitting 640 separate orders to the House. I take it that what the right


hon. Gentleman is doing sets a precedent for the action which will be taken when a general review of constituencies is undertaken throughout the United Kingdom. Each boundary alteration of each individual constituency is likely to become the subject of a separate order.
The next point is that there is provision in the Act of 1944 for a general review at periods which will average five years, but the subsection under which these orders are made states that any Boundary Commission may also, from time to time, submit reports to the Secretary of State with respect to the area comprised in any one particular constituency or constituencies, as they have done here for the Battersea constituencies today, and may make another report in a fortnight's time. That is possible under the Act.
I should like to know a little bit more. Where does the motive force come from? As far as I know, none of the Conservative organisations concerned has asked for these particular alterations. I am not aware that Transport House has suggested that these particular alterations should be made, and I inquire whether the Boundary Commission act on their own initiative or receive a suggestion from some quarter or another which permits them to take such action as they think fit?
It would be interesting to know that there would not be alterations proposed unless, say, the local authority, or the party organisations concerned, had agreed that alterations were necessary and desirable. This may be a case where the Boundary Commission are acting, as far as I know, on their own initiative, but it would be desirable, in submitting these orders to the House, if the Secretary of State would inform us whether they have been suggested by the local authorities or have been subject to discussion and agreement between the local representatives of the principal political parties.
To sum up my questions, I should like to know whether this creates a precedent which will affect the submission of individual orders when the general review takes place at intervals of approximately five years; whether individual orders will be submitted purely on the initiative of the Commission; or whether they will have been subject to prior discussion

between the political parties; or possibly come from suggestions made by the local authorities concerned.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Ede: With regard to the first of the questions put to me, I would not like to give an answer until the contingency actually arises, because submitting three orders is one thing, but to contemplate submitting up to 640 orders, after we have had an all-night sitting, is not a very pleasurable prospect. I think one might have to consider the form which it would take.
As these individual orders come along, I shall submit them to the House, and I desire it to be understood that that would be a precedent, but I am not to be taken as binding myself or my successor as to what might have to take place if, in fact, we had a general review of them. No doubt it would not include an alteration to every one of the constituencies, but it might include a fairly large number, and give rise to some Parliamentary inconvenience. If and when that situation arises, we had better leave our successors to deal with it on the lines acceptable to them. I have said as evidence of good faith, as far as these individual orders are concerned, that they shall be submitted with the maximum convenience of discussion afforded to the House.
Secondly, these cases have arisen on the initiative of the Boundary Commission. They somehow or other discovered that difficulties arose. The first is a rather peculiar one, and corrects a misprint in the Representation of the People Act of last year. Apparently, in submitting their recommendations to the Home Secretary and getting them embodied in the Bill, it was overlooked that an isolated rural parish had been linked with a county borough to which it was not adjacent. The necessary correction is being made; had it been discovered during the passage of the Bill through the House, this would have been looked upon merely as a typist's or printer's error.
There has been a revision of the municipal wards in Battersea, and it was thought desirable that that should be embodied in the order. While the Representation of the People Act was going through the House, it was found that Hammersmith had a similar revision of ward boundaries, but the new names were put into the Act, because the Bill, as it


then was, happened to be in a flexible state. That is what happened in Battersea.

Mr. Peake: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to say that I am not sure, with regard to Battersea, whether the alteration involves any alteration of boundaries or merely the names of the wards.

Mr. Ede: In both Hammersmith and Battersea it involves areas as well as the names of wards. The new areas are not mere replicas of the old wards, and this is not merely a change of nomenclature. So far as Harrow is concerned, I understand that the population became a bit disproportionate, and this order gives to Harrow three constituencies nearly more equal to those in the Bill. All these alterations are suggested by the Boundary Commissioners on their own initiative.

Mrs. Middleton: I have been interested in this case of the revision of ward boundaries since the Representation of the People Act was passed, and I should like to say that these two are not the only ones where revision has taken place. Is this a precedent? Will all areas where ward boundaries have been altered be open to review?

Mr. Ede: They will certainly be open to review, but whether they will be reviewed depends on the Boundary Commissioners. If they are not reviewed, then the constituencies will be the areas covered by the old, and not the new, areas.

Resolved:
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

11.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move,
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
This is the order which refers to Battersea. I think my right hon. Friend has already explained what has given rise to this, namely, an alteration in the wards in this area. This was the subject of a local public inquiry, held on behalf of the Commissioners.

11.5 p.m.

Mrs. Ganley: I should like to say a word on this, and outline a very real difficulty which Battersea has had over a period of months. In the early days, when the first Boundary Commission reported, Battersea was then the Borough of Battersea. It was then turned into two quite different constituencies, one having two town halls in it, and the other none at all. Very strong exception was taken to that, and that arrangement did not continue. The next thing that happened was that the ward boundaries were altered, but, unfortunately, were not altered in time to be acceptable under the report of the Boundary Commission.
What happened then, however, was that the Boundary Commission report altered one ward from one constituency into the other constituency, and that was the recommendation that was then carried out under the Redistribution of Seats Act. The necessary alteration of wards as a whole had for a long time been wanting in Battersea because the ward boundaries were not the clearest and easiest. Therefore, the wards themselves were altered in the borough from nine to 16, and the Boundary Commission looked at the question again. What was found then was that the original numbers of electorate had been very much changed. Where, in the first place, one ward had had somewhere about 10,000 more electors than the other, the new arrangement changed that, so that instead of one constituency having a majority of electors, now the other one has. That being so, I think we can well understand—and I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand—that there is not very much satisfaction in the borough about the decision now being made.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that the constituency which has now the majority of electors is also the constituency which has had a very considerable amount of damage, and in which there will be a very much greater amount of building which will automatically bring new electors into that constituency. I understand that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission is continuous in a case of this kind. Although attention has been given to this borough on three different occasions, I think it will be seen that attention will have to be paid to it on


another occasion also, because there will be greater disequilibrium in the number of electors as new buildings are erected.
I am not now asking that this should be altered, because I think the situation has been given so much attention that to ask that this should be taken back and reconsidered would, I fear, be met with a blank refusal. What I am asking is that attention should be given by the Boundary Commission to this borough and its constituencies because of the fact that the electorate will become very uneven, and because, if the notice is given, the orders can be made perfectly reasonably as this is being done, and restoration of the equilibrium of the electorate achieved.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Battersea has undoubtedly caused the Boundary Commissioners some concern. I think my hon. Friend has given a quite accurate account of the progress of the reviews that have taken place, except that she omitted to say, as is revealed by the report, that a public inquiry was held into the present scheme. An alternative scheme was prepared and submitted to the gentleman who conducted the inquiry. The Commissioners report that while the alternative scheme was not without merit they think their own scheme is better.
With regard to Harrow, they accepted the alternative scheme which was submitted to them, which shows, I think, that they have endeavoured to exercise some reasonable impartiality and discrimination. Of course, one cannot get constituencies exactly equal in size, and it is almost certain that in any borough which is divided into two constituencies one will be larger than the other. Sometimes it will be the north and sometimes the south which will be the larger. The Boundary Commissioners are not authorised to take into consideration prospective increases in the number of houses or in the number of electors; they can only deal with the accomplished fact when the electors appear on the register. If my hon. Friend's prophecy is correct, and the constituency which is now the larger is still further increased by the building of a substantial number of houses, that should hasten the time when the Boundary Commissioners will once again have to give their attention to the appropriate division of this borough into two constituencies.

We shall have to wait until then before we get an opportunity of altering the arrangement now suggested.

Resolved:
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move,
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 3) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
This relates to Harrow and, again, is necessary as a result of the alteration of local boundaries. It gives effect to the Boundary Commissioners' report without any alteration.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations, 1949, dated 14th July, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
The amendments proposed in this order are simply amendments to forms which are used in connection with the registration of electors. They are made necessary by the change in the qualification which was effected by Section 6 of the Ireland Act, 1949. The House will remember that under that Act there is a requirement of a three months' residence qualification for registration, where previously the qualification had merely been residence on a qualifying date. The two forms which are affected are form A, which is a form on which the occupier of premises has to make a return of the persons resident at his premises, and form O, on which a person makes a claim for registration. In both forms it has been necessary to introduce references to the qualifying period instead of, as before, to the qualifying date.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the limit of five days has been imposed in the schedule for the return by an occupier as to residence? It seems a very short time, and I should like some explanation of why five days has been selected.

Mr. Younger: That point is not one I have heard raised before. This is no change from the existing system. I think the reason why it appears in this order is that there has been no objection. I could not say why it was originally chosen, but there is no change and, as far as I am aware, it has given rise to no difficulty.

Mr. Smith: I am raising objection to it? Why should it be five days? Why should it be 10 days? The Parliamentary Secretary cannot get away with it on the grounds of precedence, for I am raising it as something entirely fresh. Why should it be five days?

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS AND STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.

Ordered,
That Mr. Emrys Roberts be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation Bills and Statute Law Revision Bills and that Mr. Hopkin Morris be added to the Committee."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Clause 13.—(DISCLAIMER OF AGREEMENTS AND LEASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 31, leave out from "not" to "to" in line 35, and insert:
a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business, regard being had.

11.16 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Douglas Johnston): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There is, I think, general agreement that what I shall call improper agreements which have been entered into by companies in anticipation of the passing of the Bill should not continue to bind those companies after the vesting day. The difference between this House and the other place is the test by which the impropriety of the agreements shall be ascertained. I think the difference can be most easily explained by contrasting the Clause as it left this House with the Clause as it is in its amended form.
The Clause as originally drafted provided that agreements which are either

not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the company, or are made with an unreasonable lack of prudence, may be disclaimed by the company on the instructions of the Corporation. On that being done, and if the parties to the agreement disagree with the disclaimer, the matter then goes to arbitration. Before the arbitration tribunal the Corporation are required to prove either that the agreement was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the company or that it was imprudent. But that does not end the matter, for the proviso provides a ground of defence for the parties to the contract. The ground of the defence provided by the proviso is that the contract shall not be disclaimed if it is proved that the making of the agreement was in the ordinary course of business and that it was not made in anticipation of the coming into operation of this Bill.
The Bill as it has come back to the House has had these tests deleted from it: the amended Bill provides that the test shall be whether or not the agreement was a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business. The effect is that, instead of the Corporation having to prove either that the agreement was unnecessary or that it was imprudent, the test is whether it was a proper agreement made in the ordinary course of business. That means, in effect, that one test of the propriety of the agreement—that is whether it was made in the ordinary course of business or not—is substituted for two tests, whether it was necessary or imprudent and was made in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with the Bill. The effect of the Lords Amendment is that it would allow an agreement to be terminated by the Corporation if the agreement were both necessary and prudent, but was not entered into in the ordinary course of business. In effect, it gives a wider latitude to the Corporation to terminate agreements than was provided originally by the Clause as it left this House. For that reason the Government cannot accept the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Osbert Peake: At this late hour, and after the late Sitting we had last night, I do not wish to involve the House in a very legalistic argument, but I would repeat that we must all dislike very much the retroactive


provisions of the Bill, and we most particularly dislike penalty Clauses and disclaimer Clauses which operate back to a date more than a year prior to the introduction of the Bill.
What the Clause provides is that agreements or leases which, in the opinion of the Corporation, were not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the company, or agreements or leases entered into with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the company, can be voided in certain conditions. What the Amendment introduced in another place proposes to do is to leave out the words which refer to the agreement not being reasonably necessary or not being entered into with reasonable prudence, and to insert in place thereof the words,
A proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business, regard being had to the circumstances of the time.
It seems to me that the words in the Clause as the Bill stood when it went to another place are extremely difficult to construe. It is going to be extremely difficult for any tribunal to say, two or three years after the event, whether a particular contract was entered into with an unreasonable lack of prudence.
Let me give an example of what I have in mind. On 26th May, 1946, the then Minister of Supply gave an undertaking that if and when the steel industry was nationalised, proper allowance would be made in the terms of compensation for all money embarked after that date on capital expenditure. That undertaking was endorsed the following day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thereafter, the boards of directors of steel companies considered their plans for the future and, as they sat round the table, no doubt they said to themselves, "We shall be justified in placing this vast contract for the extension and expansion of our business, although it will not begin to bring any return to us before five years, on the strength of this undertaking."
The question may arise today whether the directors, in entering into this contract, were acting with an unreasonable lack of prudence. Some of the directors may have taken an unduly optimistic view of this Government's capacity to fulfil its pledges, and they may have launched ahead into this vast expenditure;

but other directors may have said, "Oh, no; hold back. This pledge is only given by the Minister of Supply and endorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No reasonable man would proceed upon undertakings of that character and embark vast sums of the shareholders' money upon an enterprise which can bear no fruit for five years to come." It seems to me that it will be extremely difficult to cast one's mind back two to three years and for any tribunal to decide what was or would have been a reasonable or an unreasonable lack of prudence two and a half or three years ago.
That is the position under the Clause. What another place propose to substitute is the provision that the persons who entered into the contracts should be able to show they were proper transactions made in the ordinary course of business. In the course of making this Amendment, it seems to me that another place did not attach quite sufficient weight to the proviso to subsection (2) of the Clause as it stands in the Bill, because the proviso does, in fact, provide that even after the Corporation have decided that a contract has been entered into unnecessarily or with unreasonable lack of prudence, and even after the tribunal concerned have come to the same conclusion as the Corporation, if the arbitration tribunal are satisfied that the making or variation of the agreement was a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act, the tribunal shall revoke the notice and the penalty shall not be enforced.
It would therefore seem to me, reading this Amendment in conjunction with the Clause, that the words which were sought to be introduced in another place are already provided in a different form in the Clause as it now stands, and for these reasons we would not propose to divide the House on this Amendment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is an extraordinary Clause for two reasons. The first is that it was discussed during the Committee and Report stages. As I spoke for 20 minutes on each occasion, I want to say a word or two of affectionate farewell. The second reason is that it contains these ridiculous phrases. Although perhaps my right hon.


Friend is quite right in regard to their Lordships' Amendment, nevertheless the Clause as it stands is, in my submission, still quite ridiculous because it contains these two phrases about things being "reasonably necessary." When is something that is necessary unreasonable? That is the first proposition. The second phrase it uses is about an "unreasonable lack of prudence." When is a "lack of prudence" reasonable? Recently the Lord Chancellor said, in relation to another Clause in this Bill, that it was an amazing Clause and he hoped no court of law would be burdened with the task of trying to interpret it. Very much the same consideration applies to Clause 13 as it enters the Bill in its final phase.

Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 12, line 48, leave out from "not" to third "the" in line 4 on page 13, and insert:
a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business, regard being had to the circumstances at the time.

In page 13, leave out lines 6 to 13.

Clause 15.—(COMPENSATION TO HOLDERS OF SECURITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 36, at end insert:
() (a) If it proved by the stockholders' representative or by the Minister that the values of a company's securities as agreed or determined under the provisions of subsections (2) to (7) inclusive and subsection (9) of this section (in this section referred to as 'the Stock Exchange values') in the aggregate fall short of or exceed the value of the company's undertaking and assets on the first day of October nineteen hundred and forty-eight the amount of such short fall shall be added to the Stock Exchange values or the amount of such excess shall be deducted there from as hereinafter provided and the Stock Exchange values as adjusted by such additions or deductions shall become the values of those securities for the purposes of this section;
(b) for the purposes of this section the value of a company's undertaking and assets on the first day of October nineteen hundred and forty-eight shall be such amount as they might have been expected to realise if;

(i) they had been sold on the said date in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer;
(ii) in so far as they comprised a business capable of being sold as a going concern they had been so sold; and
(iii) this Act had not been in contemplation.

(c) if with respect to any company the stockholders' representative or the Minister desires to prove any matter which may be

proved by him under this subsection, he shall so inform the Minister or the stockholders' representative (as the case may be) by notice in writing given within three months after the date of transfer.

11.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is that undertakings and assets of companies taken over shall be valued as on a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller—

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Not quite.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —and that if such value, when ascertained, is greater than the Stock Exchange price, also when ascertained under the present formula—

Mr. Lyttelton: I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman, in opening this matter, should make it clear that the Stock Exchange basis of valuation is not abandoned. It is only where the Stock Exchange valuation is held to be inequitable that additions or subtractions are made.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me almost before I had begun to indicate what the Amendment intends to do. I was saying that the undertakings and the assets of the companies taken over should be valued as for a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree.

Mr. Lyttelton: No.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If it is found that that valuation, when ascertained, is greater than the Stock Exchange valuation as laid down under the Bill, the difference shall be added to the amount of compensation given to the holders of securities and, if it is less, that difference shall be deducted. That is the suggestion in brief, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman now will quarrel with the way I have put it.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am only interested in getting this strictly accurate. The Amendment begins by saying:
If it proved by the stockholders' representative … that the values of a company's securities … in the aggregate fall short of or exceed …


I am only anxious to bring out this point, that the basis of Stock Exchange value is not abandoned, and that the onus is upon the stockholders' representative to prove that that Stock Exchange basis is wrong. Once that premise is admitted, the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite correct in pointing out the consequences which follow.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have not said that the Stock Exchange basis was abandoned. It has to be taken so that when this other valuation is ascertained it can be either added to or subtracted from to arrive at the amount of compensation which is to be given to any person for the securities he holds.
The main arguments for this change are that the Stock Exchange valuation as laid down by the Government in the Bill when it left this House is unfair because iron and steel companies, since the war, have conserved their resources, have restricted their dividends, have ploughed back their profits into development schemes, and in many cases, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said on an Amendment a little while ago, have gone in for development schemes and re-equipment on a large scale. The inference is—at an earlier stage of our proceedings it was repeatedly stated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—that the Stock Exchange price does not reflect these things; and, therefore, it was essential in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that some other computation should be made in order to test whether the Stock Exchange price was or was not a fair one.
It is quite true that the Government, in these nationalisation Measures, have never been wedded to any particular form or method of payment of compensation. The Statute Book, during the last four years, is good evidence of this. When we took over the Bank of England we chose one form of compensation; when we nationalised coal another form was used; and for gas, electricity, transport and, now, for iron and steel, we have chosen—

Mr. Nigel Birch: Not for road transport.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —and, I think, properly chosen, that of the mean Stock Exchange price on given dates. The test

we have employed every time, for one or other of these methods, to ascertain what just and fair compensation should be to the holders of securities, has been whether the method chosen in that particular instance was just to the shareholder, fair to the taxpayer, and was also, and this factor does enter into it, speedy of operation. It is our view, and it has been said repeatedly during our proceedings on the Bill, that the method chosen by the Government, and accepted by this House by a very large majority, is the right one.
How are Stock Exchange prices arrived at? This answers the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds who had some very hard things to say about my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Supply and the undertaking he gave in May, 1946, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who underlined what he had said on that occasion. Surely, when the Stock Exchange price of any given class of security is arrived at, quite a number of things are taken into account. One takes into account the past history of the concern, its recent balance sheets, the reserves which it has, the condition of its plant and machinery, and whether its machinery and buildings have been brought up to date or whether they are obsolete and worn out. If those who compile the values of Stock Exchange securities do not take these things into account, they must be extremely inefficient, not to say foolish.
Therefore, when we take, as we have taken, the Stock Exchange price of these securities on certain dates, which, in our view, would be more advantageous to the stockholder than some other date, we are being quite fair, because the price on those dates must inevitably reflect the position of the company or the undertaking concerned. It was said by the right hon. Member for North Leeds that my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Supply said in May, 1946, that those companies which spent money on re-equipment would have it reimbursed, and that the Government have failed to live up to the undertaking then given.
A moment's reflection should show the House that a charge of that kind is completely unfounded. If Company "B", reading what my right hon. Friend said, began, as a patriotic set of directors, to


re-equip and bring its machinery up-to-date, and put in new plant, that re-equipment and development undoubtedly would cost money and that money must come from one of two sources. It can either come from the reserves of that company or be borrowed. If it comes from the reserves it would be reflected in the Stock Exchange prices of that concern. If it had been borrowed, then, under the terms of this Bill, that liability would be taken over by the Corporation.

Mr. Lyttelton: To anyone with some experience of company finance, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are entirely incomprehensible. He begins by what is not an uncommon error for the layman, confusing reserves and cash, which have no relation whatever to the subject we are discussing and no relation to each other.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says I am confusing reserves with cash. I did not use the word "cash" at all. I indicated, and very properly so, that when a firm buys new equipment and plant it has to find the money from somewhere. It can either borrow it, or take it from the reserves—[An HON. MEMBER: "Liquid reserves"]—Yes, liquid reserves, cash reserves.
During the past two or three years Profits Tax has been levied at two different rates. Where the profits have been distributed to the shareholders a rate of 25 per cent. was levied on the distributed profits. Where the profits were put to reserve, and either left there in a liquid form, or in some form of investment, or invested in fixed assets, new equipment, plant and machinery, the rate was 10 per cent. What I am saying is quite correct. Firms which used their reserves to reequip themselves have had that re-equipment mirrored in the Stock Exchange prices quoted in the daily or weekly lists in London. If that is not so, I would like to know how the Stock Exchange daily price lists are made up.
A further argument in support of the Amendment is that the security holders are not being compensated for the full value of the assets of the undertaking by this method. We never have contended that that was so. When we employed a different method when the Bank of England was taken over, so far as I know nothing, was said on the other side of the

House because the compensation we gave to the holders of bank stock did not reflect the full value of the assets then being taken over.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The right hon. Gentleman was very seriously challenged on that point at that time, and completely failed to answer it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have a very vivid recollection of what happened then. What certain hon. Gentlemen did try to ascertain was what were the value of the assets, but there was a general feeling then that the method we were adopting was fair and reasonable to those receiving the compensation. They would continue to get gilt-edged security which would bring them the same income they were previously enjoying.

Sir John Mellor: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that our attack on the compensation was that it in no sense reflected the great reserves of the Bank of England? We naturally sought to ascertain the amount of the reserves, and we never got the answer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: At any rate, it is quite plain that the holders of Bank of England stock did not get the full value of the assets that were being taken over, and the point I am making, and want to repeat, is that we have never contended that the stockholder did get, in the compensation paid to him, the full value of all his assets. What we promised to do, and what we are doing, is to compensate the investor for the loss of his investment. We are giving him here, as an investor in an iron and steel concern, a gilt-edged security, if he cares to keep it, at a fixed rate of interest for an investment which, in years not so long ago, paid no dividend at all.
In fact, in 1929, as most hon. Gentlemen know, 48 per cent. of those cornpanies which are mentioned in Part II of the Bill paid no dividend, and in 1934 84 per cent. of them paid no dividend. Therefore, the majority of the stockholders in iron and steel concerns are getting under the terms of this Bill fair and just compensation for the holding which they now possess. The proof of that—if proof is needed, although they were equally aware that the iron and steel industry was about to be nationalised,


and they were, I should imagine, also aware that following what had been done with gas, electricity and transport, the Stock Exchange price on given days would be taken—is that the shares in most of the undertakings listed in Part II continued to rise.
Finally, if this Amendment were acceptable it would be difficult, although not impossible, to implement it. In any case, to ascertain the values of the full assets of these companies—and they would have to be valued concern by concern—would be a long-drawn out proceeding, and one which we would hate to contemplate. In assessing the values it would be necessary not only to value the physical assets, which might not be so difficult, but also the expectations of these companies, company by company. We should have to assess the competition a company would be likely to meet at home and overseas. We should have to compute also, in order to arrive at the true value, the likely profits of each concern. Those of us who recollect the ups and downs of this industry would find that a very difficult computation to make. I therefore invite the House to reject this Amendment as being unfair to those who are to receive compensation under the terms laid down by the Government.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have listened with something little short of amazement to the Financial Secretary's excursion into the realms of company finance. He has dealt with the subject on what I think I would call a pastoral basis. I talked with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) who, unfortunately, is unable to be with us because of illness, about what would happen if the right hon. Gentleman had to value a herd of milking cows. He would say that the owner is getting the value of the cow which is in milk this year, but last year he might have had it taken over when it was not in milk. How lucky he is. Perhaps a little later, he will realise the force of these remarks. It is quite erroneous to suppose that the Stock Exchange value is discarded.
To listen to the Financial Secretary one would think that no business has ever been bought or sold on the going concern basis. This is what takes place

every day between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The immense practical difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman tries to raise in this matter are entirely without foundation. There is no difficulty in valuing compensation as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The objection to our original amendment was it gave the companies more if the Stock Exchange values were exceeded, but did not reduce their compensation if a valuation was below Stock Exchange prices. The matter was raised, and quite properly I thought, during the Committee stage. I did not observe it at that time, but I thought the objection was correct. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), I think, raised the point about different dates on which these valuations could be made; this Amendment lays down a uniform date, and so we start off with agreement.
I do not want to go—and, indeed it would be impossible to disguise the fact that I would wish to fold my wings in sleep earlier than I did last night—into the inaccuracies of the Financial Secretary's speech. I am sure that hon. Members opposite do not wish me to go at length into them, and then nail them down. These are quite sincere objections passed on for consideration and based on a lifetime's experience in these matters. Let me assure the House that I am not in the least concerned as to who does well or badly out of this nationalisation from a financial point of view. I have no interests myself, and what we are considering are not national, but sectional interests. It is a purely technical matter, and I take it that the Government wishes to compensate those who are having their interests nationalised, on a fair and equitable basis.
I am only saying that for technical reasons the basis the Government have chosen does not happen to be fair or equitable; indeed, the Financial Secretary has given some proof of this himself. He said that from one nationalised industry to another the Government adopt a different basis, but the different basis is unlikely to be equitable in every care. There is a case which I do not want to make because I do not want to provoke a speech from the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) who happens to be present because that, again, would keep us out of bed.
There is a case for supposing that the Government chooses the instrument for compensation which suits themselves in each case, and not the stockholders. There are one or two things which I think are significant: first, in valuing an estate for Death Duties, the value of a controlling interest in a company is not taken at Stock Exchange value by the Inland Revenue because, in that way, it was thought that the person concerned would receive a value for his controlling interest for this purpose at a lower figure than that at which it would be computed if the fact that his interest was a controlling one were taken into account.
This is exactly parallel to the case with which we are dealing here, and the State cannot have it both ways. If it says to the dead capitalist, "You are really not entitled to value the controlling interest in a company at Stock Exchange value because there is a hidden value in it," then, equally, the State, when compensating him when he is alive, must say, "We take into account the controlling element interest in your share." I dare say it is in the memory of the House that the Government rejected any idea of selling the Argentine Railways—which we have since eaten—to the Argentine Government on the basis of Stock Exchange value. They found that one out anyhow. If they had sold the railways on the basis of Stock Exchange value, we on this side would have belaboured them good and hard for doing so. They avoided this trap and said to the Argentine Government, Certainly not. To sell our railways at Stock Exchange value would be ridiculous because though these valuations are fixed they are only in regard to a very small amount of stock. That is the reason why the Government rejected Stock Exchange values in that case.
But why do they reject them in this case? The reason is that they are going to buy something for much less money than it is worth. I am very sorry to have to give actual cases and figures to the House, but I must drive home the theoretical soundness of my argument by giving practical illustrations. The first one that will occur to hon. Members is the case of Thomas Tilling. In July, 1945, the ordinary shares of that company were valued on the Stock Exchange at 51s. 6d. After the introduction of the Transport Bill they had a little fall, but they varied between 57s. and 60s. a share

at the time of the introduction of that Bill. They were acquired by a system of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller, on the basis of a going concern, and the compensation was fixed at 120s. Therefore, the value received was about double the Stock Exchange value.
I have here two other specimen cases. They are the cases of Richard Hill Ltd. and The Briton Ferry Steel Co. Ltd., to which I must draw the attention of the House. In both cases the Government acquired assets worth £750,000 for £105,000. The Financial Secretary's argument about the fact that we are not giving the full value of a fixed asset really falls to the ground on the face of a disparity of this kind. Nothing is more difficult to ascertain than the value of a fixed asset for the purposes of compensation. It is mixed up with the cost of replacement of the asset, its original cost and its earning capacity. But with disparities of this kind Stock Exchange values can be seen to be manifestly absurd. I assure hon. Members opposite that I am not trying to defend a pal of mine who has a few shares in a company, but that I am trying to see that, in this vast revolution, something like justice, and something which can be defended by ordinary fair-minded people, is done. I also acquit the Government of any desire to "do" people, but they are very ignorant and very clumsy in these matters and unwittingly will do a great deal of injustice. It will be seen that the Government are to acquire £750,000 worth of fixed assets for £105,000.
12 m.
In the second and larger case, the total compensation receivable by the Company is £1,154,000 and the parent company's proportion of the net current assets—that is, realisable—is £1,025,000. Consequently, the whole of the fixed assets of the company will be acquired for £129,000, whereas they stand in the books, after depreciation, at £748,000. Here are two instances where, I suggest, a gross injustice is done to the common stockholder. If the Government persist in their attitude in rejecting the Amendments they will have to think again about doing justice.
I will not deal with the question of a pledge, because I have said sad things about that in the past. I still say that the


pledge has been violated, and deliberately violated, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will have something to say about that. I shall end with two other short observations. First, Stock Exchange values are affected by the conservative dividend policies of the company. It is very sad in this vale of tears that the unrighteous sometimes prosper and the righteous sometimes get lower values for their securities. Companies which plough back profits into their business generally command a lower price on the Stock Exchange than those which are free with their distributions.
Second, it is an undoubted fact that Stock Exchange values have been depressed by the voluntary limitation of dividends. Industry has been put on its good behaviour and, having behaved well, its good behaviour is being exploited by the Government so that they may buy its securities at lower prices. Perhaps I will not say in order to do so, but will merely point out that the effect is that their securities vest in the Government at lower prices. I will not go as far as to say "in order" because, as far as possible, I want to keep away from a controversial note.
Lastly, it is demonstrable—and hon. Members will be glad to know that I do not propose to demonstrate it—that unfructified capital expenditure is not reflected in Stock Exchange values. This is not only my opinion, but happens to be also the point of view which is held by the Council of the Stock Exchange. One may imagine that a professional body of this kind which, whatever hon. Members opposite may think, is not a political body, would be very eager to say that the most equitable means of valuing any form of security would be to take the Stock Exchange value, but, as a matter of fact, they take the opposite view and the correct view. They say that for the purpose of parting with a whole company, of an amalgamation of an entire concern, of parting in the most exaggerated sense with a controlling interest, Stock Exchange values are not a fair guide.
I do not want to detain the House any further, and my last point is that when we come to look at how these theoretical vices work out in practice, we find that we are correct in regarding these as vices. If we take the Income Tax basis, with

16 out of the 26 companies—about two-thirds—this is what we find, and perhaps I should explain what I mean by the Income Tax basis: I mean the cost of the assets diminished by the ordinary Income Tax allowance for wear and tear and reduced in value by the process of depreciation allowed for Income Tax purposes. Nobody could possibly say that the value at which the assets stood in the books was inflated. The 16 companies, applying the allowances permitted by the Inland Revenue, get a value of £224 million. The compensation payable by the Government to those concerns amounts to £155 million.
There is really no argument that we are not paying for the fixed assets in full that will allow the Government to get away with something so manifestly unfair. I make a plea that at long last they should allow a little more flexibility—a quality, it would seem, that transcends all others in the mind of the Minister of Supply, because it is invariably his defence, when he is apparently without any other adequate defence, to say, "I must not be pressed on this or that, because I wish to keep everything flexible." Here is a case where he ought to keep things flexible. Where it is demonstrable that to have a Stock Exchange value of a man's security today will inflict hardship, the Government should not exclude from their mind the possibility of arbitration and of the basis of the security's passing from a willing seller to a willing buyer.

Mr. Spearman: I do not always find it very easy to follow the Financial Secretary, but I have had the pleasure of listening to him through a great many financial Debates, and I have a certain experience of him now, and I feel sure that what he was trying to tell us was that the Stock Exchange valuation is a fair way of valuing shares. All of us who know the right hon. Gentleman know what a very honest man he is, and so I feel sure he really means that; but I have been puzzling myself to try to find out what is the explanation of this clear contradiction. I think, perhaps, it is that the right hon. Gentleman is not very clear about this particular matter, and that he is thinking, perhaps, of Government stocks.
When we take a Government stock, that Stock Exchange valuation is, indeed,


a very fair way of arriving at a value, because there is a free market in that stock. If people want to acquire a certain rate of interest they go on buying the stock and pushing up the price. If, on the other hand, they want to sell, they sell their stock and force down the prices, and, in a free market, they are sure of getting a price. At present, as the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware, they are not very confident about Government stocks, and the price is falling rather sharply. But that, of course, has no value whatsoever as a method of valuing ordinary shares, where there are hidden reserves which entirely alter the whole situation.
The ordinary share is valued very largely on the dividends it is paying, and, consequently, of those companies that are paying a big dividend—perhaps they have been rather rash—the shareholders get an advantage. On the other hand, those that are very cautious and put their money to one side have been penalised. It is for that reason that I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile himself to this, because though he may want to be very harsh in the price he wishes the State to give, he, like others of his hon. Friends, I am sure, wants to be just, and however harsh they may want the compensation to be, they would wish it to be just between one shareholder and another—between one man and another. Under this arrangement it cannot possibly be fair between one man and another. Shares, as I have said, are largely valued on the amount of dividend they are paying, and on the prospect of what they will pay. But that is only a part of it; there is no scientific way of getting at just what that amounts to.
Perhaps I may give one small personal illustration. I remember a very long time ago, when I was a very young stockbroker, being told by the chairman of what now is one of our greatest industrial companies, to sell a very large number of shares. He was an old man preparing his way for Death Duties. He told me to sell this very large number at just under 50s. He said, "These shares are much too high and I cannot think why they are selling at this price. They are yielding only 4½ per cent." In six months those shares—one of our blue chips—were standing at 90s.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I suggest that the hon. Member should tell that story to his right hon. Friend, who was arguing just now that a low rate of dividend meant a low Stock Exchange price.

Mr. Spearman: That is exactly what I am saying, that three-quarters of the influence which settles what the price of a share is, is the dividend paid. People are not prepared to buy the shares at a very low rate of interest whatever their future may be; but every now and then it becomes apparent that they will pay much more. Therefore, in that particular instance the shares move up in price. But for those reasons, whereas the Stock Exchange is a clear and fair way of valuing Government stocks, it is a completely unfair way of valuing stocks with variable dividends. Moreover, it changes with the amount of the market. If you get a share with a free market it is more likely to be more sound than another share where the amount is largely held by one family and there is no market for the shares. In such a case you are bound to get quite a wrong price for the share.
Time and time again, I have known cases of shares quoted at 50s. each for a small number, while for a large number they may be quoted at about 10s. each. I have in front of me a list of the prices at which various very important banks, financial houses and companies have taken over other companies. I will quote three examples. The Shell Company, two years ago, took over a block of B.O.C. shares. At that time those shares were standing on the Stock Exchange at 20s. The price which the Shell Company paid was 139s., or 12.5 per cent. of the market price. Hambro's Bank took over a concern, the shares of which stood on the Stock Exchange at 25s., for 28s. 6d., or 23 per cent. on the market price. Baring Bros. took over shares at 6s. which were standing on the Stock Exchange at 3s. 10½d., or a 54 per cent. increase. Does the Minister suggest that Baring Bros., Hambro's Bank, Lazarus Bros., Shell, and other concerns are so grossly incompetent that they are offering 30 to 50 per cent. more than they need pay without any reason? They do it because in these shares the Stock Exchange price is no indication at all.
I come back to my original point, that however stiff the terms which hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to make, and I


can understand their wishing to make very stiff terms, I cannot understand their not wishing to be just as between one man and another.

Mr. Nigel Birch: This is a point which we have many times discussed in the House, and we have always had the same sort of answer from the Financial Secretary; and that answer really is not any answer at all. The hon. Gentleman started by saying that hon. Members opposite had employed many different types of compensation for nationalised undertakings. That is very true. He instanced the Bank of England; coal, which was on a quite different basis; and also the Transport Act, where a number of quite different types of compensation were fixed. Stocks were valued for the railways, but not for railway wagons or for road transport. Therefore, there were three different types of compensation in that Measure alone. Then we had the Town and Country Planning Act, where compensation was on the basis of bluster, without anything behind it.
12.15 a.m.
But surely what we have always argued is this: there must be some principle behind what one does. Surely, the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite have simply suited their own convenience in various cases does not indicate that they were simply suiting their own convenience and not pursuing the ends of justice. The principle behind all these things is perfectly simple, and it is that a business must be independently valued between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
I say advisedly "a business" and not "shares in the business," because it is something wholly different, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I say "as the hon. Gentleman knows" because he knows what happened in the case quoted by my right hon Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), that is to say, the case of Thomas Tilling, with which hon. Gentlemen opposite are very familiar, where the whole basis was entirely different from the basis employed under the scheme of the Bill. That was a very good instance indeed of the difference between buying shares in a business and buying a business.
So the main point we have always had to draw is, what is an independent valuation? There is no difficulty in taking on such a valuation. It is done every day, and the argument of convenience is one which should not be raised at all. There is no difficulty about doing it, and it should be done if it is in the interests of justice to do so. That argument of inconvenience seems to be an unworthy one.
I should like to say a word on a matter raised by my right hon. Friend, and that is about the pledge that the people would get back the money they put into the creation of capital assets after the Government announced that they were going to nationalise the industry. No answer to charges of breach of faith in that undertaking has ever been given. The only answer given was, in fact, that the assets are reflected in the Stock Exchange values. That is wholly untrue. The only thing reflected in the Stock Exchange values in October, 1948, was the anticipation of what was going to happen under nationalisation. That has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of the business at all, and this specific pledge was given that money in full for new capital development should be given back. That has not been done.
Of course, it was the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and the previous Minister of Supply who gave those pledges, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must be careful about those pledges that were given. After all, it was not so very long ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, standing at that Box, made a solemn pledge that no insurance company was going to be nationalised. That has gone west now. The Government will have to reckon that nobody at that Box is going to be held in much esteem after the experience we have had and the pledges given. That is a serious state of affairs and one they will find extremely inconvenient.
The last point I want to make is that what the Government are doing is to take away from people real assets. They are taking real mills and every kind of plant and factory which is producing iron and steel in many varying forms. And what are they giving in exchange? The right hon. Gentleman said it is absolutely wonderful for people because they were getting gilt-edged securities. What is a gilt-edged security nowadays? It is a security which has depreciated in terms


of goods all the time; that is to say, as the price level steadily rises, the actual purchasing power of the dividends on capital received from a gilt-edged security has depreciated with some rapidity, and I would say with increasing rapidity.
On top of that, it is not only depreciating in terms of goods but also in terms of money. We have seen, in the case of Gas Stock, recently issued and not all taken up, that it has already depreciated to under 93; that is, it is standing at a discount of over 7 per cent., so that people are suffering not only because they have had real assets taken away and have received confetti instead, with a buying power steadily decreasing, but they do not get even the nominal value which, under the Government pledge, they should be entitled to.
How that can be defended, I do not know; in fact it has never been defended. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Well, it is convenient", and if one's old widowed aunt dies, the Stock Exchange value of her shares is good enough for the Treasury to rob her. That is wholly irrelevant. What hon. Gentlemen are doing is to take real assets, give inadequate compensation in return, even in terms of money, and the money they are giving is money which is rapidly depreciating. Therefore, it is no true compensation for those assets and I hold that this has been wrong and unfair throughout, and in cases where Stock Exchange value has been applied it has always been unjust and always will be so.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to make two short comments to show the fallibility of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. The first is on the question of reserves. My hon. Friends have shown that a great many considerations come in when a prospective purchaser is considering Stock Exchange securities.
First and foremost comes the dividend rate, its probability of maintenance, the general strength of management, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman, both in the Committee stage and this evening, made great play with the assertion that the reserves were reflected in price and that consequently a prospective buyer really had his eye on the reserves and was buying for them and taking them into his calculations. There was a certain

amount of truth in that in the old days before limitation of dividend restrictions came in, because what a prospective buyer looked at in reserves was the likelihood of the distribution of the reserves in the form of a bonus issue.
When that bonus issue took place he proceeded to calculate whether the dividend rate was likely to be maintained on the increased capital. If that was likely to come about, it had an effect on the price of the shares, but not the main effect. Today, however, when dividends are limited and the only effect of a bonus issue is merely to increase the amount of the capital without increasing the return on that capital, the effect of reserves in calculating Stock Exchange prices is virtually negligible; at any rate it is a very low factor indeed, and has nothing like the importance which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to attach to it.
My other comment to show where the Stock Exchange prices can go so egregiously wrong is to instance the case of well-known trust companies. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the current Stock Exchange prices, he will find that the prices quoted for the equity stock of those trust companies are from 20–40 per cent. lower than the break-up value of the companies themselves; that is to say, if the trust company were broken up, and all its holdings were sold at current Stock Exchange prices, they would produce from 20–40 per cent. more than the prices of the trust companies' own shares at the present time. I throw that into the arena, in addition to the other instances given, to show how variable Stock Exchange prices can be, and therefore this Amendment, which seeks to protect the ordinary taxpayer of the country as well as the ordinary investor, is not a one-way traffic—it compensates in both directions and is a most fair suggestion.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Not only throughout this Debate, but throughout Second Reading, and throughout the Committee stages both in this House and in another place, we have been up against a blank wall of abysmal ignorance on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on matters of compensation. The Clause is entitled "Compensation to holders of securities," but in point of fact, as has been clearly demonstrated on innumerable occasions, it is semi-expropriation and nothing more; and it


is really almost useless to continue an argument with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are either ignorant or foolish or refuse in any way to be convinced by reason.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 116.

Division No. 243.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Acland, Sir R.
Forman, J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Albu, A. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian


Attewell, H. C.
Gilzean, A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Baird, J.
Granville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.


Balfour, A.
Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Barstow, P. G.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Barton, C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moyle, A.


Benson, G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nally, W.


Berry, H.
Gunter, R. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Beswick, F.
Guy, W. H.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)


Bing, G. H. C.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Binns, J.
Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brent'ord)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
O'Brien, T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Orbach, M.


Boardman, H.
Hardman, D. R.
Paget, R. T.


Bowden, H. W.
Harrison, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pannell, T. C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haworth, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Pargiter, G. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.


Brown, George (Belper)
Holman, P.
Pearson, A.


Burden, T. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Burke, W. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Popplewell, E.


Callaghan, James
Houghton, Douglas
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Carmichael, James
Hoy, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T.
Price, M. Philips


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Proctor, W. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pryde, D. J.


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ranger, J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Janner, B.
Rankin, J.


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cooper, G.
Johnston, D. H.
Rhodes, H.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, C.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
King, E. M.
Sargood, R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shurmer, P.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Diamond, J.
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Simmons, C. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Donovan, T.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Longden, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAllister, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dye, S.
Mack, J. D.
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Steele, T.


Ewart, R.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Farthing, W. J.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Stokes, R. R.


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington. E.)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)


Follick, M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stross, Dr. B.


Foot, M. M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stubbs, A. E.




Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Swingler, S.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Sylvester, G. O.
Watson, W. M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Symonds, A. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willis, E.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Weitzman, D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
West, D. G.
Wise, Major F. J.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Woods, G. S.


Timmons, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wyatt, W.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wigg, George
Yates, V. F.


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Usborne, Henry
Wilkins, W. A.



Vernon, Major W. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nutting, Anthony


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Odey, G. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Haughton, S. G. (Antrim)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pitman, I. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S.(Southport)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bullock, Capt M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Carson, E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teeling, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McFarlane, C. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Molson, A. H. E.
York, C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)



Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Studholme and


Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Colonel Wheatley.


Question "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Clause 25.—(OTHER TRANSACTIONS RE SULTING IN DISSIPATION OF ASSETS).

Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 34, line 13, to leave out from "not" to end of line 17, and insert:
a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business regard being had to the circumstances at the time.

In page 35, line 1, leave out from "applies" to second "the" in line 6.

Clause 38.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT AND STATISTICS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 26, leave out from "1948" to end of line 30.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment raises a simple issue. It is the question of the presentation to Parliament of the accounts of the companies and laying them before the Minister and the House. We have followed in the Bill quite strictly the provisions laid down in the Companies Act, which says that group accounts must be published, and the holding company must publish consolidated accounts, but it is not necessary to publish the subsidiary accounts. It is a very simple issue here. There are about 80 group accounts to publish, and


they will be sent to the Minister and laid before Parliament. If all the subsidiary accounts are to be laid as well, there will be about 225, and their presentation would be a considerable nuisance. All these accounts will be made public, and anybody can see them. There will be far more accounts published than ever before, and we do seriously suggest that it would be quite wrong to demand the presentation of these 225 accounts to the House. The procedure we suggest actually goes farther than is demanded by the Companies Act.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman asks us to disagree with another place; we would disagree with his remarks; but, seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary has found himself able, on 10 out of 12 of the last Amendments, to say that he agrees with another place, out of mercy to him and other hon. Members opposite we shall not divide the House.

Mr. Erroll: It may be all right in the case of a private company for one to go to Somerset House and get a copy of an account on demand, but in the case of a public undertaking, the accounts should be available by means, perhaps, of a consolidated booklet, with the accounts properly published.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but as it may be recalled, my main charge against the Government on this Bill has consistently been that they are taking powers unto themselves, and putting into the hands of Ministers powers over which Parliament has no proper control. There is only one way in which we can have any control over the way in which this industry works, and that is by having the most detailed accounts each year. If this Amendment is rejected, it means that group accounts will be used to disguise anything which the Minister may wish to hide. I disapprove of the Minister's intentions in this matter.

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 39, at end to insert:
() The accounts of each publicly-owned company shall give or be accompanied by a statement giving separate information as respects each of the principal activities of the

company and as far as may be the financial and operating results of each such activity.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment asks that the accounts of each publicly-owned company shall give a separate statement about the financial results of the principal activities of the company concerned, together with other statistical information. I suggest that it is undesirable, for two reasons. First, it is the duty of the Corporation under Clause 38 (5) to publish all statistical information available about the trading activities of the publicly-owned companies. This statistical information will be there. The other point is whether the actual financial results and production costs of all the principal activities shall be collected and published.
That, we suggest, would again put an undue burden on the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies. The costing system of the publicly-owned companies would have to be adapted to make that possible, and that would take a considerable time and would be a considerable burden. It would mean, moreover, that the production costs of all these principal activities, having been published, would come to the knowledge of our competitors overseas. It is undesirable that the production costs of all these important articles should be published to the world, and it might seriously damage our trade in foreign countries. For these reasons, I suggest that the proposal contained in the Amendment is unreasonable. It would be a very substantial burden on the Corporation and it should be rejected.

12.45 a.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think that the Minister is confusing two things. It is quite true that in Clause 38 (5) there is provision for the Corporation to publish periodical statistics and returns, not only of the Corporation but of each of the publicly-owned companies. What is asked for in the Amendment is something quite different from the mass of figures rather like the green document which the Government issue every month. It is a statement giving separate information as regards each of the principal activities of the company.
I do not consider that that is any more than we are now getting from the iron and steel companies which are privately owned. If we look at their balance sheets we find set out at the end two or three pages of print showing the ramifications of the companies, their subsidiaries, where they operate in different parts of the world, and lists of the activities which they conduct. I do not think it unreasonable to ask that what is now being done in the best private commercial practice should be repeated by the Corporation and its subsidiaries. I do not believe that the Minister has properly considered this matter, and I ask him to indicate that he might, after all, accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: This is not done by private companies at the moment; they do not give financial records of their activities.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I did not say "financial records."

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 46, at end insert:
() Where it appears from the accounts of a publicly-owned company that in any year such publicly-owned company has incurred a loss from its activities taken together the Report of the Corporation required under section four of this Act shall draw attention to such loss and to the circumstances in which it has been incurred.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment suggests that whenever a publicly-owned company has made a loss, the Corporation in its report to the Minister and to Parliament should set out the reasons for that loss and the circumstances in which it has been incurred. If we are going to specify all the things that shall be contained in that report, I would point out to the House that we have a whole lot of suggestions to make, and that I do not think this particular item would be at the top of the list. There are all sorts of other things which we hope will be reported to us by the Corporation—new developments, general prospects, the size of the staff, and so on, which are all of great importance—as well as this one which has been suggested in the Amendment.
We take the line that it would be wrong to specify any particular matter of interest

to the House and to the public. If we did that, it would look as if we put greater emphasis on it than on other things. It is much better to leave it to the Corporation. We know from experience that the accounts of these corporations are very full of information. We should leave it to them to give such information as they think desirable, and if important information is withheld the Minister has the power to ask for it and to present it to Parliament. For these reasons, I suggest that the House should reject the Amendment.

Clause 50.—(REGULATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 6, after "by" insert:
section (Powers of subsidiaries of the Corporation), section two and

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is consequential on an Amendment which we discussed in the early hours of yesterday morning.

Clause 60.—(SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 10, at end insert:
() This Act shall come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, again, is consequential on an Amendment we discussed earlier and I do not think the House will want to repeat the discussion which took place on that occasion.

New Schedule.—(DESCRIPTION OF IRON OR STEEL PRODUCTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 95, line 49, at end add new Schedule:

1. Iron or steel (including alloy steel) in any of the following forms (and whether or not new or secondhand or prime or defective)—

Pig;
Ingot;
Billet, bloom, slab;
Tinplate bar, sheet bar;
Plate, medium plate, sheet (and whether coated or uncoated);


Angle channel, tee, joist, piling section, other sectional material (and whether fabricated or not);
Round, rod, square, hexagon, flat, other section and shape (and whether black or bright);
Rail, sleeper, fishplate, soleplate;
Tinplate tinplate base (uncoated) terne plate, black plate, silver-finished plate;
Hoop strip (and whether coated or uncoated and whether hot or cold rolled);
Tube pipe and standard fittings (not being conduit fittings) therefor;
Tyre, axle, wheel;
Casting, block for forging, block for pressing, forging, drop forging;
Colliery arch, and accessories therefor, pit prop;
Spring;
Wire rod;
Coated or uncoated wire (whether plain or barbed), wire rope, wire strand, wire netting, wire chain link fencing, wire reinforcement fabric mesh, wire rod reinforcement fabric mesh, wire nail, wire staple;
Bolts nuts, screws, screw studs, washers and rivets.

2. Ferro alloy of any kind.

3. Scrap iron and scrap steel (including alloy steel)."

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. S. N. Evans, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Peake, Mr. G. R. Strauss and Mr G. Thomas; Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes to One o'Clock.